News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[jt04]

Just to be clear, you are saying that the best option was to build a box and paint it blue? Any form of design or theme on the outside of the building would be inferior?

Due to the massive scale of the building the best option is the parking lot, yes.

Unless or until it can be written into the 'backstory' such as was done with ToT in DCA, then I think this is the best option.

If you were told this ride system had to be placed at WDW, where would you suggest it go and how would you theme or not theme the exterior? I'm all ears.

 

[marni1971]

If you were told this ride system had to be placed at WDW, where would you suggest it go and how would you theme or not theme the exterior? I'm all ears.

Funnily enough they faced the same problem a few miles north in the early 70s. They solved that quite well.

 

[jt04]

Funnily enough they faced the same problem a few miles north in the early 70s. They solved that quite well.

If you are referring to Space Mountain, isn't this building and system significantly larger?

 

[marni1971]

If you are referring to Space Mountain, isn't this building and system significantly larger?

I am, and it’s not.

 

[jt04]

I am, and it’s not.

I'm not just referring to footprint. I guess it could have gone into Tomorrowland but guests might have complained due to it blocking all the sunlight. It also would have been visible from many locations in the park. In Epcot you have to focus on the horizon to see it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If you are referring to Space Mountain, isn't this building and system significantly larger?

Nothing about a roller coaster system dictates it’s height. An indoor roller coaster removes the points of reference for said height. A launched roller coaster removes the need for height as a means of providing potential energy.

 

[marni1971]

I'm not just referring to footprint.

Neither am I.

So, there could have been a piece of architecture that was pleasing to the eye as opposed to a warehouse box that is visible from many places in Epcot.

One of the many reasons it is a mistake.

Have you seen it in person yet?

 

[jt04]

Nothing about a roller coaster system dictates it’s height. An indoor roller coaster removes the points of reference for said height. A launched roller coaster removes the need for height as a means of providing potential energy.

Something dictated a building this massive.

 

[jt04]

Neither am I.

So, there could have been a piece of architecture that was pleasing to the eye as opposed to a warehouse box that is visible from many places in Epcot.

One of the many reasons it is a mistake.

Have you seen it in person yet?

No, I'm waiting until all these new E tickets open.

And I think making the building subdued is the best option unless it can eventually be incorporated into a larger whole. If that is the ultimate result of its placement.

SSE still rules over FW.

 

[marni1971]

No, I'm waiting until all these new E tickets open.

Figures.

 

[Goofyque']

While I can understand some of the disappointment of this building, I can't be the only one that looked at it in excitement and said "WOW! I can't wait to ride whatever takes that much space!" Said it when we saw the FOP building, and I wasn't disappointed! (And this comes from someone who remembers riding the burros at DL.)

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

The building just could have been something iconic and beautiful but different from Space Mountain or Spaceship Earth. But instead, no, they choose big blue box. I just don't get it.

 

[jt04]

The building just could have been something iconic and beautiful but different from Space Mountain or Spaceship Earth. But instead, no, they choose big blue box. I just don't get it.

It would have thrown off the forced perspective. Cost substantially more.

And for all we know the exterior may be getting an overlay eventually. Disney may not have decided exactly what that will be yet. In any case, this leaves open options for the future. Pun intended.

 

[marni1971]

It would have thrown off the forced perspective. Cost substantially more.

And for all we know the exterior may be getting an overlay eventually. Disney may not have decided exactly what that will be yet. In any case, this leaves open options for the future. Pun intended.

I don’t know where you get your delusions laserbrain.

Again.

 

[Rteetz]

forced perspective

 

[NateD1226]

 

[Sneezy62]

Funnily enough they faced the same problem a few miles north in the early 70s. They solved that quite well.

I was there frequently in ‘72, ‘73, and ‘74. Age 10 to 12. I was excited for space mountain and disappointed when we moved just before it opened. Went back in ‘78 and finally got to ride. I really enjoyed it. It was satisfying to ride something I had been so excited for. It also changed the entire Magic Kingdom experience so fundamentally that I lost all interest in WDW and only went back after 31 years. I totally see the parallel to GotG. Except this time they didn’t Seem to even care enough to try to make it fit.

To be clear, I love Space Mountain, It has come to be so ingrained in Tomorrowland that very few can imagine the land without it. As well done as it was though it created an imbalance that was felt at the time and has reverberated ever since.

I find it sad that so many can’t enjoy a park without a roller coaster.

 

[ToTBellHop]

While I can understand some of the disappointment of this building, I can't be the only one that looked at it in excitement and said "WOW! I can't wait to ride whatever takes that much space!" Said it when we saw the FOP building, and I wasn't disappointed! (And this comes from someone who remembers riding the burros at DL.)

I believe even Martin has mentioned that the ride itself should be fun. If they had built it at DHS, painted it tan with a “Warehouse 82” sign for the year Peter Quill visited WDW, I don’t think there’d be much complaining. If you insist on putting a coaster into Epcot, pick one that fits both the theme and aesthetic of the park. It’s a simple standard that only applies to DAK among the 6 domestic parks these days. (Maybe DHS but it’s not a huge accomplishment to stick with entertainment franchises, and even still, the aesthetics in that park are a befuddled mess).

 

[lazyboy97o]

It would have thrown off the forced perspective. Cost substantially more.

And for all we know the exterior may be getting an overlay eventually. Disney may not have decided exactly what that will be yet. In any case, this leaves open options for the future. Pun intended.

What forced perspective? What structure would this exterior overlay of yours attach to?

 

[jt04]

What forced perspective? What structure would this exterior overlay of yours attach to?

People are already complaining about the new building detracting from SSE. Adding to it and calling attention to it would make that more of an issue. This would be fine if it was part of a larger backstory. Which may or may not happen in the future. Nobody pictured Tron when the MK opened for example.

PS some of the fan art is very interesting and could be self supporting. Not dependent on the gravity building.