News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[LittleBuford]

Evolution / developed upon as opposed to holdover.

Baxter took a technically unfeasable design and worked it into a possible one.

Either way, it goes to show that the pavilions aren't always as thematically determined/legible as some here are claiming.

 

[marni1971]

That's the hilarious part. It's taking 4 years to build this thing. Meanwhile up the road, they tore down two coasters (or count them as one) and are building a thematically fitting ride featuring a dual drop setup, changing directions, and AA show scenes. In half the time it's taking to build this. I'm hoping this feels like a 4 year project when it opens.

Speaking of it, @marni1971, do you think the HP ride is going to live up to the hype (from what you heard)?

Yes.

I also think it’s a fitting replacement to the Dragons. They had no choice but to do something. I feel (like Spider-Man) they’ve gone above and beyond what they could have done.

Although it doesn’t get them a pass for F&F.

 

[marni1971]

Either way, it goes to show that the pavilions aren't necessarily as thematically legible as some here are claiming.

Like I’ve said, maybe people were not as thick back in the day.

 

[LittleBuford]

Like I’ve said, maybe people were not as thick back in the day.

So people in the '80s looking at a glass pyramid somehow intuited that it symbolised imagination?

 

[marni1971]

So people in the '80s looking at a glass pyramid somehow intuited that it symbolised imagination?

I don’t know. I never asked them.

 

[trainplane3]

Yes.

I also think it’s a fitting replacement to the Dragons. They had no choice but to do something. I feel (like Spider-Man) they’ve gone above and beyond what they could have done.

Although it doesn’t get them a pass for F&F.

That's great to hear. I love watching how fast it's going together. Now...we just need to see if an Intamin can run smoothly on opening day.

I did Disaster the year it opened and after seeing videos of F&F, I feel like it was the better attraction. F&F is just...bleh. Disaster wasn't incredible but it was something.

 

[larryz]

So people in the '80s looking at a glass pyramid somehow intuited that it symbolised imagination?

They didn't have to intuit. The sign on the pavilion told them.

 

[LittleBuford]

They didn't have to intuit. The sign on the pavilion told them.

And that's my point. There is nothing about the pavilion's design that is inherently connected to imagination. Indeed, one could make the argument that something less regular and more whimsical would fit the theme better.

 

[marni1971]

I did Disaster the year it opened and after seeing videos of F&F, I feel like it was the better attraction. F&F is just...bleh. Disaster wasn't incredible but it was something.

I did Earthquake when it was new. Now I feel old.

Disaster was a very sympathetic upgrade. I’d rather have that back.

 

[Incomudro]

This is a very good example and it’s fairly recent so not just the “old school”Disney doing things right. I brought this up earlier but it got buried in a series of back and forth posts. I am not telling anyone what to do, but I personally am holding out hope that there is some plan to “hide” at least part of the building and clean up some of the viewing issues from inside the park. They can’t just leave this thing as is. Well, they can but I don’t see why they would. If they went out of their way to hide a sliver of a show building from next to some restrooms they won’t just leave this exposed building. And I don’t buy this whole idea that the rules don’t apply to EPCOT. It would be poor show. If they want to leave the building visible it would have to be themed to fit the look of Future World...not a big blue box.

Before anyone replies I know I’m being overly optimistic. If they leave this as is I will sadly come back and admit I was wrong and take up a pitch fork with you guys.

I'm with you, and I've said this before - I believe there will be some foliage and probably some tall trees trees planted in front to break up the outline.

 

[jt04]

I must say things like a Disney character parade winding through Frontierland and Liberty Square seem much more problematic thematically than a barely noticeable square building outside the berm of a non-castle park.

 

[kthomas105]

I must say things like a Disney character parade winding through Frontierland and Liberty Square seem much more problematic thematically than a barely noticeable square building outside the berm of a non-castle park.

What about a marching band in Future World?

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

And that's my point. There is nothing about the pavilion's design that is inherently connected to imagination. Indeed, one could make the argument that something less regular and more whimsical would fit the theme better.

The designs may not all be easily intuitive, but they were all conceived in intimate connection to their theme. Think about how difficult it is to communicate something as nebulous as imagination in a concrete, structurally sound but still beautiful building - especially in 1982. Having that pavilion be realized in pyramidic glass prisms, in my opinion, was a brilliant way of manifesting a metaphor for imagination in a form that was solid, architectural, and fitting with the styles developed for the Future World pavilions. It frames the building as a source of imagination and not simply a result of it - the "mound from which the world is formed", a prism through which ideas refract and expand and become new. And then it was also surrounded by its imaginative details - the topiaries, the upside-down waterfall, the laminar fountains - which made the place feel active and alive, as if "imaginations" were filtering through the building at all times into this fertile ground for creativity.

 

[LittleBuford]

The designs may not all be easily intuitive, but they were all conceived in intimate connection to their theme. Think about how difficult it is to communicate something as nebulous as imagination in a concrete, structurally sound but still beautiful building - especially in 1982. Having that pavilion be realized in pyramidic glass prisms, in my opinion, was a brilliant way of manifesting a metaphor for imagination in a form that was solid, architectural, and fitting with the styles developed for the Future World pavilions. It frames the building as a source of imagination and not simply a result of it - the mound from which the world is formed, a prism through which ideas refract and expand and become new. And then it was also surrounded by its imaginative details - the topiaries, the upside-down waterfall, the laminar fountains - which made the place feel active and alive, as if "imaginations" were filtering through the building at all times into this fertile ground for creativity.

If you look again at the posts I was responding to, you'll see that my goal was to challenge the rather far-fetched (and, frankly, insulting) idea that those of us who don't see a direct correlation between the pavilion and its theme are stupider than our '80s forebears. It's perfectly possible to advance a thematic reading of the design (as you have eloquently done) without pretending that the building should automatically scream imagination to anyone with a brain.

 

[wdisney9000]

So people in the '80s looking at a glass pyramid somehow intuited that it symbolised imagination?

Regardless of what a person specifically intuited from the architecture, it was inviting and beautiful. It's architectural theming was not limited to , "don't look at me", which seems to br acceptable for some folks.

 

[LittleBuford]

Regardless of what a person specifically intuited from the architecture, it was inviting and beautiful. It's architectural theming was not limited to , "don't look at me", which seems to acceptable for some folks.

Again, that wasn’t my point. Please see the post immediately above yours.

 

[wdisney9000]

Again, that wasn’t my point. Please see the post immediately above yours.

You lost me when you used the word "stupider".

 

[GoofGoof]

You lost me when you used the word "stupider".

It’s actually a word, although stupid is more like slang so not really proper, it’s an appropriate use or the er. Since stupid is a 2 syllable word and there’s a mix of “er” vs “more” with 2 syllable words it’s probably debatable. I’m not sure what the formal dictionary says if anything. I now feel stupider (more stupid?) having written this.

 

[LittleBuford]

You lost me when you used the word "stupider".

It’s actually a word, although stupid is more like slang so not really proper, it’s an appropriate use or the er. Since stupid is a 2 syllable word and there’s a mix of “er” vs “more” with 2 syllable words it’s probably debatable. I’m not sure what the formal dictionary says if anything. I now feel stupider (more stupid?) having written this.

Are 'stupider' and 'stupidest' real words?

Some smart advice on modifying adjectives

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I can almost 100% bet the decision to add Guardians in this form went something like this:

Statisticians - “EPCOT needs an attendance boost.”
Public opinion poll - “ I think it needs a coaster”
Suits- “We’ve got to get Marvel in our Florida parks somehow.”
Suits - “What property can we use?”
Attorneys - “Guardians of the Galaxy”
Suits to Imagineers- “Build it as cheaply as possible.”