News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[The_Jobu]

You don't remember when many said FoP was just going to be soarin 2.0?

Yes.

 

[trainplane3]

To be quite honest, I've not been interested enough to find out. I've been more concerned with what's being done to the existing pavilion and the ride system and planning for the new attraction.

If I had to guess, 90% of it is getting dumped? Probably a couple AA's being saved but the rest being scrapped/repurposed.

What gets me with all of this, they must've really wanted this ride system GONE. To close GMR and UoE on the same exact days sends a strange feeling out. Which is sad because it was a truly unique ride system that could move a metric crap-ton (official term) of people in one go.

Are you going to be there to document the last days?

 

[*Q*]

To those of you saying "oh well I bet it will still be about energy"... don't you think they would have nailed that little factoid home at the Expo announcement? Instead of saying "it will be very much rooted in an EPCOT story" they would have said something to the effect of "your Guardians adventure will be very rooted in a story"

 

[Mike S]

More coaster less dark ride.

Damn.

 

[MaximumEd]

For real. I can go ride a coaster any number of places. Give me my dark rides!

 

[MisterPenguin]

Well... it won't be sunny...

 

[*Q*]

Seriously!? Epcot change it's name? Back to EPCOT Center or to something totally new?

Something totally new would seem crazy to me. Epcot is so well known.

"EPCOT Off-Center"

 

[RSoxNo1]

I agree with this entirely, but my concern is that just because Peter Quill remembers '80s Epcot doesn't mean Joe Schmoe who visits the park in 2021 is going to remember (heck, even be aware of) '80s Epcot. Which would leave the ride as a head-scratcher to most (even if people like us would love it).

So...Disney wants to cannibalize an original attraction to fit in an IP whose premise would be that the main character is disgruntled Epcot isn't as great as it once was, so let's go back in time and bring it back to how it used to be?

Sorry, my head hurts a little.

Let me preface this by saying I have no idea what Disney is doing here.

Having said that, we saw a cool scene change effect in the Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway presentation and I could see similar transations showing the passage of time as part of the Guardians attraction. EPCOT Center looked at the past, present and future in most of the pavilions and the Time Stone allows the Guardians to do the same thing. If they so desired, they could setup the post show to include full ride throughs of classic EPCOT Center attractions (unlikely), or they could make references to things changing and even show the changes through the years using the Time Stone. You get in the vehicle and Quill wants to look around. He goes over to Mission: SPACE hoping to see Horizons, so he uses the Time Stone and the building changes before our eyes on a large screen. Then they go back too far and there are dinosaurs walking around or something. There's opportunities for this to be silly as well as pay tribute to EPCOT Center.

 

[MaximumEd]

Let me preface this by saying I have no idea what Disney is doing here.

Having said that, we saw a cool scene change effect in the Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway presentation and I could see similar transations showing the passage of time as part of the Guardians attraction. EPCOT Center looked at the past, present and future in most of the pavilions and the Time Stone allows the Guardians to do the same thing. If they so desired, they could setup the post show to include full ride throughs of classic EPCOT Center attractions (unlikely), or they could make references to things changing and even show the changes through the years using the Time Stone. You get in the vehicle and Quill wants to look around. He goes over to Mission: SPACE hoping to see Horizons, so he uses the Time Stone and the building changes before our eyes on a large screen. Then they go back too far and there are dinosaurs walking around or something. There's opportunities for this to be silly as well as pay tribute to EPCOT Center.

That's a pretty dang good idea, which means they probably won't do it. Still, they should hire you immediately.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

What if it's about how lil Quill saw a big event at EC when he went and they use the time stone to go back.

 

[TalkingHead]

You don't remember when many said FoP was just going to be soarin 2.0?

It is. What's the difference?

Back on topic, when is Guardians expected to open? Before or after Star Wars?

 

[Andrew C]

It is. What's the difference?

Back on topic, when is Guardians expected to open? Before or after Star Wars?

Why do you care? You're not going to like either anyways, right?

 

[Amidala]

Even if this attraction will be a pure coaster, there can still be thematic elements...I think Everest at DAK is one of the greatest examples of this–and even though RnR's story is flimsier, the queue and on-ride elements are pretty strong. Maybe the pre-show and other elements will elevate this ride? All that being said, I don't think the storytelling aspects of the ride are going to make it relevant to Epcot or have anything to do with Epcot Center. I would love to be proven wrong.

Unrelated...anyone else hoping this won't be a coaster with an intense launch? Between RnR, California Screamin', Tron and IIRC Disneyland Paris's Space Mountain, this seems to be Disney's go-to for thrill coasters. I'm fine with looping, dropping (within moderation–I pass on ToT) and high speeds, but hate high speed launches like the one on RnR. I was so excited about the Tron coaster, and really bummed to learn this also has a launch...Been on RnR a few times but I really have to psych myself up for it, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to handle Tron, as cool as it does look.

 

[No Name]

Why? I mean, it's cool to have an overarching concept that ties together a theme park, but I don't think it is necessary. The irony being that the well loved castle parks are a collection of disparate themes that are just stuck together (mainly because they were stuff that Walt Disney liked). The biggest key is that each individual land is properly cohesive and themed IMHO.

Okay, I was going to write this up later. But with all due respect, I experienced seven anxiety attacks while reading your post. So here's what I say. And I'd love to hear if and how you/others disagree.
-----

Fifty years ago, the idea of spending a week at theme/amusement parks was completely foreign. "Why would anyone want to do that... wouldn't that be too much of the same thing?" they'd say. Disneyland was built with the intention of being a day-trip (or one night) place, just like any amusement park or carnival. Magic Kingdom was also built with the intention of being one park in a resort of other things (like a city of tomorrow).

When Disney decided to add more parks to WDW, they had to sell people on the idea of a theme park vacation. So they made each park fundamentally different.

It's fine to have one Magic-Kingdom-like park, but two? Three? Four? Think about how terrible UO would be with Universal Studios Florida, Islands of Adventure, Peninsulas of More Adventure, and Plateaus of Epic Adventure. I already can't tell the difference between the two parks... four of them would feel rediculous, confusing, and probably unappealing to the general public.

Today, the theme park vacation is so ingrained in our culture that things won't change overnight. But if guests begin to feel that it's too much of the same thing, they could begin to spend less time or fewer vacations in Orlando. Or at DL. Or at any place that wants you to go to more than one park. As someone who has no interest in seeing the downfall of the theme park resort, I really think each park needs to be fundamentally different.

 

[trainplane3]

Okay, I'd been planning to post this at a later time, but I just experienced seven anxiety attacks reading your post. So here's what I say:

Fifty years ago, the idea of spending a week at theme/amusement parks was completely foreign. Why would anyone want to do that... wouldn't that be too much of the same thing?, they'd say. Disneyland was built with the intention of being a day-trip (or one night) place, just like any amusement park or carnival. Magic Kingdom was also built with the intention of being one park in a resort of other things (like a city of tomorrow).

When Disney decided to add more parks to WDW, they had to sell people on the idea of a theme park vacation. So they made each park fundamentally different.

It's fine to have one Magic-Kingdom-like park, but two? Three? Four? Think about how terrible UO would be with Universal Studios Florida, Islands of Adventure, Peninsulas of More Adventure, and Plateaus of Epic Adventure. I already can't tell the difference between the two parks... four of the same would feel rediculous, confusing, and probably unappealing to the general public.

Today, the theme park vacation is so ingrained in our culture, and people go to Orlando because its Orlando. But if guests begin to feel that it's too much of the same thing, that can change. They may choose not to go to Orlando. Or DL. Or any place that wants you to go to more than one park. As someone who has no interest in seeing the downfall of the thene park resort, I really think each park needs to be fundamentally different.

Heh, I went USO about 8-ish years ago. I didn't know they were two separate parks until the band director (yes...high school band trip) said to stay in USO and not to go to IOA even though the tickets were good for both parks. I jumped on my phone and was disappointed I couldn't ride Hulk or Dueling Dragons.

To add to your point, I completely agree each WDW park should have its own theme. MK=generic castle park/generic-ish space/fantasy/adventure/frontier lands, Epcot=science/exploration, HWS=movies, AK=animals/habitats/preservation. I don't want to see WDW turn into a awkward mish mash of...things. I've been wanting to go to DL mainly because of how much better maintained (except the People Mover) everything is and there's more of that "Disney magic". I'm sure it's not perfect, but it sounds like there's more love for the rides and upholding the idea of "magic" out there.

I go to Cedar Point to get my thrills. The most theming there is some rocks and fences for Maverick, some trains that look like dragsters for TTD, Magnum had a rip off Stormtrooper sign at one point, and a mess of mythological animals slapped onto rides where the closest sense of theme is a sign. I don't care there. Cedar Point has and always will be a mess of themes and it works like that. But, I expect Disney to uphold a single theme that works for its' parks.

 

[Amidala]

I've been wanting to go to DL mainly because of how much better maintained (except the People Mover) everything is and there's more of that "Disney magic". I'm sure it's not perfect, but it sounds like there's more love for the rides and upholding the idea of "magic" out there.

I've never been to DL so I can't speak from experience, but it's probably worth considering that DL only really has DL and DCA. MK at WDW (a "counterpart" to DL) has never had issues with theming–or at least, not on the level of DHS and Epcot. And DCA has had a pretty rocky past. I'm hoping that DHS and Epcot will receive some of the same love and attention for WDW's anniversary that DCA received for DL's.

 

[PizzaPlanet]

More coaster less dark ride.

Unless you ride an ECV through the queue/preshow(s).

 

[becca_]

Unless you ride an ECV through the queue/preshow(s).

New ECV "dark ride" queue upcharge MAGICal experience, confirmed!!

 

[trainplane3]

I've never been to DL so I can't speak from experience, but it's probably worth considering that DL only really has DL and DCA. MK at WDW (a "counterpart" to DL) has never had issues with theming–or at least, not on the level of DHS and Epcot. And DCA has had a pretty rocky past. I'm hoping that DHS and Epcot will receive some of the same love and attention for WDW's anniversary that DCA received for DL's.

That is very true. My biggest issue with MK is really character interaction. It seems everything is so processed where in DL it seems it's more on the fly. Sort of "here wait in this 30 minute line to see X" vs "oh hey X is out walking around, I'll try to get a picture". I can't remember the last time I've seen a character jump on a ride with a kid at MK. There seems to be a lot less "aw that's nice" moments at MK vs DL. But MK (1 day) and AK (maybe the whole morning) are the 2 parks I barely spend any time in. DCA seems like it's in a good spot aside from the tower. The state of Epcot just straight bums me out. It could be so much more. And I don't mind 2 parks vs 4. I've been to WDW 25+ times (once a year with some double visits in a year) and I want a change of scenery. Plus I want to ride a Space Mountain that's been cared for and given love, as stupid as that sounds.

 

[doctornick]

Okay, I was going to write this up later. But with all due respect, I experienced seven anxiety attacks while reading your post. So here's what I say. And I'd love to hear if and how you/others disagree.
-----

Fifty years ago, the idea of spending a week at theme/amusement parks was completely foreign. "Why would anyone want to do that... wouldn't that be too much of the same thing?" they'd say. Disneyland was built with the intention of being a day-trip (or one night) place, just like any amusement park or carnival. Magic Kingdom was also built with the intention of being one park in a resort of other things (like a city of tomorrow).

When Disney decided to add more parks to WDW, they had to sell people on the idea of a theme park vacation. So they made each park fundamentally different.

It's fine to have one Magic-Kingdom-like park, but two? Three? Four? Think about how terrible UO would be with Universal Studios Florida, Islands of Adventure, Peninsulas of More Adventure, and Plateaus of Epic Adventure. I already can't tell the difference between the two parks... four of them would feel rediculous, confusing, and probably unappealing to the general public.

Today, the theme park vacation is so ingrained in our culture that things won't change overnight. But if guests begin to feel that it's too much of the same thing, they could begin to spend less time or fewer vacations in Orlando. Or at DL. Or at any place that wants you to go to more than one park. As someone who has no interest in seeing the downfall of the theme park resort, I really think each park needs to be fundamentally different.

Oh, I absolutely agree that each park (in a resort) needs to be distinct and to have some defining characteristics that distinguish them. I'm not in any way arguing against that and there is a real and legit concern about the various WDW parks becoming somewhat homogenized. I'm just saying that I don't think you need to have an individual park have to have some overarching theme that has to be slavishly referred to by each land.

TDS has a distinguishing concept binding everything together (sea/water) but fundamentally it's set up in a very similar fashion to TDL and other castle parks. What it does, however, is present new and different themes for lands than TDL and executes them (mostly) brilliantly. As I said, I think having individual lands that are individually cohesive and high quality is more important IMHO than having a park concept that everything has to adhere to.

Edit: That said, I'd like to see Epcot remain the more sophisticated, "adult" park and have more of its basis in the real world/science. Obviously, GotG doesn't really go well with that unfortunately, but I do think there are IPs (BH6, Inside Out, Professor Von Drake) that could be used effectively for that purpose.