NobodyElse
Well-Known Member
I guess we'll see eventually, but I question this statement.
-
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
I guess we'll see eventually, but I question this statement.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You clearly don’t understand the points being made or how attractions, or even basic buildings, are developed. The interiors come last, not first.
What it means to you is also not in line with what it meant to it’s author. The function that most concerns Sullivan in The Autobiography of an Idea is emotion. He not once advocates for a Corbusian sort of stark utilitarianism.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
That's an unfair characterisation of Le Corbusier.
That’s a lot to unpack. I didn’t say the interiors come first. I said interiors and exteriors designed together with the finalization of the interiors coming later. And as for the points being made, you did a good job of obfuscating the discussion. Nice to say the track is known. They’re not designing Space Mountain The Next Generation. They need to go well beyond the track, thus the rectangular building, the biggest ever. So oops, the exterior didn’t get the care you expect. Maybe they haven’t decided yet. Maybe you can storm into WDI and chew out their architects for violating Sullivan’s ironclad rules and report them to their licensing boards.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
Weren't you the one who was arguing that they had followed them?
In a themed environment -- even one that's themed in a unique way, like Future World -- such a large, looming, unthemed box is inexcusable. That's the crux of it. Whether it bothers you personally or not is basically immaterial, it's not good work.
Here's the real test -- as guests, do we want to see Disney build more bare, blank buildings like this, or less?
Remember when Disney went back and added rockwork to the corner of Enchanted Tales with Belle after New Fantasyland opened because they noticed guests could see a corner of the showbuilding?
(PS: This is a really good example of where Go-Away Green works, because it's trying to make a sliver of building blend into the space around it -- and even THEN they went to the trouble of adding more rockwork after the area had opened officially, because it didn't meet their standard.)
They could and should have done better.
Well, you pulled out an example that’s immaterial to Epcot, which has a themed concept, but not a traditional theme park. So it’s not what I said sorry.
The Guardians building is clearly outside of the park. Go away green or sky blue will be fine regardless because the building is not a feature in the park. It is fronted by the original Energy building.
Here’s a photo of the new plain Soarin’ building at The Land.
The Guardians building is clearly outside of the park. Go away green or sky blue will be fine regardless because the building is not a feature in the park. It is fronted by the original Energy building.
Here’s a photo of the new plain Soarin’ building at The Land.
Last edited:
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
You mean the building that people have been complaining about since it was built, and isn't nearly as intrusive as this new one?
Soarin' can only be seen by guests from the front of the Germany Pavilion looking towards Canada. It cannot be seen anywhere else, inside or outside of the park, and only barely rises over the mountains and chateau in Canada. And yet we have seen continued discussion over its intrusion since 2004.
The sky blue isn't fine when it doesn't work, like it doesn't with Guardians. The building is too big, too visible, unobscured except from immediately in front of the old Energy building. It is a feature of the park whether it is built "in" the park or not. It's not like the next-door neighbor built some massive thing that Disney had no control over and now they have to deal with the view. They had control over everything and exercised it poorly. It is by every count a bigger intrusion than Soarin' - taller, wider, less obscured, visible from more locations, including outside the park . . . it should have had a BETTER solution than Soarin', and instead it was treated the same, already legendarily unsuccessful way. What a fail.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I don’t remember this being the case when I visited in December. Is the building visible at all within Future World?
Here’s the Rock n Roller Coaster Building in full view of guests and it doesn’t match the theming of Sunset Blvd, which was in the era of opulent theatres.
Epcot’s rules are not the same rules in other Disney parks. Regardless, it has the space to spread out it attractions in increasingly corporate style buildings.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
The entry to The Rock N' Roller Coaster is themed to G-Force Records, a contemporary tenant on the historic Sunset Boulevard. It's not the most graceful use of storytelling, but at least everything's themed. The facade isn't bare, it's a recording studio, and one built years after everything else on the Sunset Strip. By the story, it shouldn't fit in with the Hollywood Tower Hotel, they were built in different eras of Hollywood.
Even the massive showbuilding, hardly visible from inside the park, is themed to fit the Studio motif of the park - note the "Studio 15" sign that matches those that could be found all around Studios:
It's not stunning, but it at least agrees with its surroundings. It's also themed in the knowledge that it is most visible from outside the park, so the fact that they went to the trouble of dressing it shows that at one time that was a priority too. They didn't want guests wondering "what's that big, square building over there?", they spent a little money to make it visually part of the park. It's "one of the Studios on the lot".
You're correct that the rules in Epcot aren't the same -- which makes it even MORE frustrating that this building doesn't follow them. Like I said, the only other building like this in Epcot is Soarin', and it's been a point of contention for more than a decade. And by every count the Guardians building is worse than Soarin'.
Not sure what your point is about having space to spread out attractions in "corporate style" buildings - none of the WDW parks are hewed in by anything outside in any meaningful way, they can all spread out basically as much as they want. My point is that building buildings like this is not an asset to the park. Disney used to build rides in Epcot where both the attraction and the building added to the guest experience. And now, when they have more money than ever, they suddenly can't manage it? I call BS. They should do better.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
Here's an aerial view of Epcot - the red are guest spaces I have distinct memory of seeing the building from while I was in the park last month:
It's not visible from everywhere in Future World, but only because the Innoventions buildings block the view of Future World East, not by any strategy of the building itself -- though the rumors of the Innoventions buildings being leveled and replaced with open space would change that considerably. At that point it would perhaps be also visible to the full central corridor of Future World nearly all of Future World West (The Seas may be spared). Assuming that demo comes to pass.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your detailed response. I didn’t notice it except from across World Showcase Lagoon. I’d be curious to see photos of how it looks from within Future World.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
In truth, the only real constructions in Future World that have thrown this off are Mission: Space, the Test Track Canopy (can we lose that thing yet?), the Soarin' building, and now this, right?
That's a pretty tremendous track record to throw out the window so blatantly after almost 40 years of barely screwing up*.
*Barely screwing up Architecturally, at least. They've certainly found plenty of ways to screw up the contents of the pavilions over the years.
smile
Well-Known Member
The overgrown jungle around The Land hides its original intent.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
** Shudders **
My point was mainly that it's not like they've built tons of new Future World pavilion buildings that weren't created under the same premises as the original. Horizons aside, the buildings themselves all still stand.
But the wand certainly did its damage to both a pavilion and the park's icon. Thank goodness they had the sense to do away with it, eventually.
smile
Well-Known Member
my point was there hasn't been any.
give credit for inaction, if you will, but preserving those magnificent structures while abandoning their essence has done the park no favors
- in fact, i feel the reverse is true... oh, my darling epcot, the lone and level sands stretch far away
at this point, i just hope true motivation is found
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
That's all pretty fair. In context I was only trying to suggest that the architectural path of Future World hasn't logically led to a building like Guardians. You're entirely right that what they've done to the inside of these buildings is not made up for by leaving the outsides largely intact.
That's part of what makes this pill so bitter to swallow -- that even if they miraculously found their way with Future World and made some good sense out of where they're going with the land, it's now always going to have this big freakin' box looming over it and there's nothing they're gonna be able to do about it. Except theme it, one day, which isn't likely if it isn't happening now. It's such a giant shame to saddle this part of the park with this stupid thing that isn't even taking it in a good direction. It feels like they've given up.