News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

DisneyDodo

Well-Known Member
Why? When something is that visible and they cant hide it, why not make it look like a building from guardians or theme it in some way at the very least. Make it a space port, or make it part of the u of e building and continue the design.
Because from a story perspective, that building isn’t supposed to exist. They’re not trying to draw attention to the fact that you enter one building, get in a car, and then launch into another building a few feet away. The idea is that you are launched into space.

Disney does not want that building associated with GotG:CR in any way. That’s why guests will not enter it from the outside or exit from it to the outside. From a thematic perspective, the former UoE building is the one and only Guardians building.
 

comics101

Well-Known Member
Most roller coasters are just empty space. Turns can only be so tight, launch areas and brake zones have minimum lengths, etc. You typically don't notice the actual volume a coster takes up as the majority of them are not covered.

For instance, if the Maverick at Cedar Point with a track length of 4462' were to be covered by a building, it would take a building with a footprint of nearly 700'x700' that was over 14-15 stories tall.

By comparison, the building housing the coaster portion of Cosmic rewind with a reported track length of 5000' is only around 220'x320' and a height of 14 stories +/-. The pictures we have so far show an incredibly tight track layout with very little wasted space.

I say, count your blessings that the building is not bigger.

Em-5cF6W8AIaX88.jpg

Serious question--and the answer may be that it would be cost prohibitive:

Why not build the coaster partially underground? Could they have dug a basement for the footprint of the showbuilding, and sunk the coaster into that, thus cutting the visible parts of the showbuilding in half? Does that make sense?

It just seems like there should have been some sort of inventive way to avoid the ugly blue warehouse problem.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Because from a story perspective, that building isn’t supposed to exist. They’re not trying to draw attention to the fact that you enter one building, get in a car, and then launch into another building a few feet away. The idea is that you are launched into space.

Disney does not want that building associated with GotG:CR in any way. That’s why guests will not enter it from the outside or exit from it to the outside. From a thematic perspective, the former UoE building is the one and only Guardians building.
You’re stuck on this idea that it had to be two separate buildings. The impression of one building is something that could have been done.

Serious question--and the answer may be that it would be cost prohibitive:

Why not build the coaster partially underground? Could they have dug a basement for the footprint of the showbuilding, and sunk the coaster into that, thus cutting the visible parts of the showbuilding in half? Does that make sense?

It just seems like there should have been some sort of inventive way to avoid the ugly blue warehouse problem.
Definitely possible but also expensive. It’s also a launch coaster meaning they don’t need the height to get the coaster through the circuit.
 

comics101

Well-Known Member
If they were going to make the gravity building fit with Epcot, they would have just bulldozed the energy building and put everything in the new one. Instead, they chose to use the energy building as the face of the attraction, which means the gravity building needs to be hidden to the extent possible. There’s no scenario where it would have made sense to have two themed buildings for a single pavilion/ride.
As much as I'd hate to lose the Energy building, this would have been the preferable route.
 

comics101

Well-Known Member
The show building is around 50metres tall, and it was built in Florida ...at Epcot of all places, exactly what difference would spending a bunch of money to dig 3 metres lower to the ground to 99% of guests who aren't turning around behind them looking for a show building?


I'm just so angry they have installed the barges in the lagoon, how do they expect me to be able to complain about a sky blue show building with those barges blocking my view of it!!

...you don't have to turn around to see the ugly blue warehouse. The thing literally towers over Spaceship Earth.
 

comics101

Well-Known Member
Sure they could have, but that would cost more. Given the already inflated budgets on these projects, I could not imagine what the price tag would be on something more complex than a box.

It is also not all that practical. Buildings like Space Mountain, SE, and even the old Horizons building really take a hit on useable square footage relative to their overall size due to their odd shape. In the case of Horizons, more than 24,000 square feet of the building's envelope was unusable due to the nearly 28' long overhang around the building.

Remember the "Disney Difference?" Yeah, it costs more to build EPCOT Center and DAK than it does to build Six Flags. The extra $$$ spent to hide big ugly blue warehouses used to be what made Disney special.

The problem, it seems to me, is that current management doesn't get why people used to fall in love with Disney's parks. Maybe times have changed and guests truly don't care anymore. I hope that's not the case.
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
Serious question--and the answer may be that it would be cost prohibitive:

Why not build the coaster partially underground? Could they have dug a basement for the footprint of the showbuilding, and sunk the coaster into that, thus cutting the visible parts of the showbuilding in half? Does that make sense?

It just seems like there should have been some sort of inventive way to avoid the ugly blue warehouse problem.
Under the best of conditions they might have been able to shave off 10 of building height.

Basements in Florida are prohibitly expensive when they are possible at all due to the high water table. In some areas you can get maybe 10'-12' before you run into water issues. In some, you can dig a post hole without it filling with water.
 

DisneyDodo

Well-Known Member
You’re stuck on this idea that it had to be two separate buildings. The impression of one building is something that could have been done.
I’m not stuck on that idea at all. I explicitly mentioned one building as an option:
If they were going to make the gravity building fit with Epcot, they would have just bulldozed the energy building and put everything in the new one.
My point is simply that if they are going with the two-building approach, which they are, it does not make sense to theme the gravity building.
 

egg

Well-Known Member
if they are giving interviews already it will probably be open for july or before



The guy says “and this is going to be at Epcot, actually” as if it’s not a massive permanent building. Like yeah of course it’s gonna be at Epcot. I get he’s kind of speaking to the viewers but it’s still weird.
 

Rose&Crown

Well-Known Member
With the all the landscaping work I’m convinced they’re going to put the ship on displace and move those construction walls back for a photo op spot. It’s way to chapek for it not to happen.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom