News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[marni1971]

Future World is unthemed. The concept is the theme.

It used to be. But hey.

 

[larryz]

. . . 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.

Well, there aren't many buildings bolder than the Technicolor Box...

Let’s boldly go further than anyone can stand.

Guardians - cube.

It worked for the Borg... it can work for the Guardians.

And as Iger puts it: IBFW.

 

[DanielBB8]

It used to be. But hey.

We are still in the in between period until they pick a side. Either go themed concept or themed land. Could it be themed concept 2? World of Festivals.

 

[Incomudro]

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.

If anything personifies form follows function, it's a box.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If anything personifies form follows function, it's a box.

Not if you’ve actually read Sullivan.

 

[DanielBB8]

Not if you’ve actually read Sullivan.

Sullivan designed modern skyscrapers with ornamentation. His designs will not fit Epcot that has even less ornamentation. So I don’t get why we are made to believe Sullivan will design anything other than a rectangular building in the turn of the century style.

 

[rkleinlein]

If anything personifies form follows function, it's a box.

Sullivan designed modern skyscrapers with ornamentation. His designs will not fit Epcot that has even less ornamentation. So I don’t get why we are made to believe Sullivan will design anything other than a rectangular building in the turn of the century style.

I think the point was not that the building should be Louis Sullivan style or Frank Lloyd Wright style, but rather that excusing or defending an ugly box with the principle of "form follows function" is a misunderstanding of what "form follows function" meant to those architects (and still means to accomplished architects and designers working today).

The function of this building is not merely to enclose an attraction. It also functions as a gigantic, highly-visible structure within an existing entertainment/vacation/theme park complex. Despite attempts to make it less visible, the form of this building does not follow that particular aspect of its function very successfully.

That aspect of its function (aesthetics, design, whatever you want to call it) matters less to some people and more to others.

 

[DanielBB8]

Despite attempts to make it less visible, the form of this building does not follow that particular aspect of its function very successfully.

Sad to think trying to be invisible is unsuccessful.

Anyways, better nothing than Mission Breakout, no?

 

[MisterPenguin]

If anything personifies form follows function, it's a box.

Well, it could've been a snaking tube that followed the track with large nodules for the scenes...

 

[OG Runner]

Well, it could've been a snaking tube that followed the track with large nodules for the scenes...

Don't knock it, until they have built it. I like your idea.

 

[Incomudro]

I think the point was not that the building should be Louis Sullivan style or Frank Lloyd Wright style, but rather that excusing or defending an ugly box with the principle of "form follows function" is a misunderstanding of what "form follows function" meant to those architects (and still means to accomplished architects and designers working today).

The function of this building is not merely to enclose an attraction. It also functions as a gigantic, highly-visible structure within an existing entertainment/vacation/theme park complex. Despite attempts to make it less visible, the form of this building does not follow that particular aspect of its function very successfully.

That aspect of its function (aesthetics, design, whatever you want to call it) matters less to some people and more to others.

The function of the box is to enclose the track with the hopes of drawing one's primary focus away from the box and onto the lighter colored structures that lie on the plain before it - the actual cue for the GotG ride and Spacehip Earth.
While attempting to not steal the show or compete visually from Spaceship Earth.
How effective that is - is debatable.
But that's why it's form follows it's function in the most basic way.

 

[CalebS]

Don't knock it, until they have built it.

Are you new? In case you didn’t know you knock it before, during and after they build it. That’s how the forum works

 

[OG Runner]

No, I am not new and I have definitely noticed we will discuss just about anything to death, get off on tangents that end up so
far away from the topic, you can forget what the discussion is, unless you look at the heading at the top of the page. Honestly,
I was just having fun imagining a dark ride show building that took the shape of the track with occasional "nodules" (Thanks Mister
Penguin), for the show scenes. It would definitely garner some attention.

 

[rkleinlein]

it's form follows it's function in the most basic way.

Yes, it's definitely the most basic way to enclose the tracks. It's the most basic way to enclose any space no matter the function. Which is the problem of this building.

 

[montyz81]

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.

Wow. I mean, wow. I am just....... WOW. Holy cow!. Now we know why Iger is doing what he is doing to Epcot. The original intent of Epcot Center is now officially lost on 99% of the population.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

The function of the box is to enclose the track with the hopes of drawing one's primary focus away from the box and onto the lighter colored structures that lie on the plain before it - the actual cue for the GotG ride and Spacehip Earth.
While attempting to not steal the show or compete visually from Spaceship Earth.
How effective that is - is debatable.
But that's why it's form follows it's function in the most basic way.

If "Form Follows Function" could be distilled in its simplest form down to "a big box" , architecture in the 20th century would have quickly turned into everyone building identical big boxes. But it didn't, because that's not what it's about. It's about working backwards from the soul of the structure's use -- in this case, entertaining guests on a Roller Coaster Ride -- and designing a building around it that harmonizes with that.

Space Mountain is a great example of an Indoor Roller Coaster designed by Form Following Function. Looking at it wordlessly tips you off to there being an exciting, dramatic experience inside. Guardians is a box. It could be a Walmart, if you didn't know better. I understand they're trying to get people not to look at it (ha), but that's literally the opposite of form following function. That's a building designed in antithesis to what will be going on inside - an exciting, dramatic Roller Coaster Ride.

 

[DanielBB8]

I didn’t think they’re building a second Space Mountain. The attraction will have show elements. They could be going from room to room where each room is rectangular to accommodate a screen. Even today, watching a screen in a rectangular room is the form that usually follows the function. So unless we know what’s in it, we should give them the benefit of the doubt that they made the most efficient use of space.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I didn’t think they’re building a second Space Mountain. The attraction will have show elements. They could be going from room to room where each room is rectangular to accommodate a screen. Even today, watching a screen in a rectangular room is the form that usually follows the function. So unless we know what’s in it, we should give them the benefit of the doubt that they made the most efficient use of space.

We know that they don't even quite know what's in it yet. If show scenes are not finalized - which, as Lazyboy97o says, is not unusual - then it's safe to say they did not design the building to perfectly accommodate those scenes:

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.

Come on, DanielBB8. They built a warehouse because it was easy and gave them flexibility, not because it would serve to make Louis Sullivan proud. This isn't a masterstroke, it's a business decision, and one that flies in the face of all the good design that came before it.

 

[DanielBB8]

We know that they don't even quite know what's in it yet. If show scenes are not finalized - which, as Lazyboy97o says, is not unusual - then it's safe to say they did not design the building to perfectly accommodate those scenes:

Come on, DanielBB8. They built a warehouse because it was easy and gave them flexibility, not because it would serve to make Louis Sullivan proud. This isn't a masterstroke, it's a business decision, and one that flies in the face of all the good design that came before it.

Saying the show scenes are not finalized doesn’t mean the screens and hardware are not completed in the interior. It’s foolhardy to not design an attraction with all the elements inside. The final story could further be refined until its ready. Even in the best case, it might not always work. You imagine there’s flexibility as if the rectangular building has extra space to fit in show scenes. Space Mountain is just a cone with the tip flattened out. It’s a coaster with little use of the top. This new coaster is square so every inch has some use.

Now you extrapolate the argument that the exterior must be perfect and using Sullivan who never designed theme park buildings for reference. His buildings are square with heavy use of ornamentation. If you want them to build a power/refinery plant like Mission Breakout with pipes, antennas, and logos, it might just be the ticket. It’s an UPGRADE from the solar panels.

 

[Incomudro]

If "Form Follows Function" could be distilled in its simplest form down to "a big box" , architecture in the 20th century would have quickly turned into everyone building identical big boxes. But it didn't, because that's not what it's about. It's about working backwards from the soul of the structure's use -- in this case, entertaining guests on a Roller Coaster Ride -- and designing a building around it that harmonizes with that.

Space Mountain is a great example of an Indoor Roller Coaster designed by Form Following Function. Looking at it wordlessly tips you off to there being an exciting, dramatic experience inside. Guardians is a box. It could be a Walmart, if you didn't know better. I understand they're trying to get people not to look at it (ha), but that's literally the opposite of form following function. That's a building designed in antithesis to what will be going on inside - an exciting, dramatic Roller Coaster Ride.

Form follows function clearly means something different to you than it does to me.