• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

Hawg G

Well-Known Member
It's worth noting that I do in fact know there are set pieces for it to turn to, on top of scenes that I have included some of those in my model using footage from the actual movie because it's very easy for me to imagine how fly by show scenes will help drive the narrative of the ride. Especially when they already have a indoor coaster that uses this. You just seem to be fixated on one particular way in which you think the ride will go down.

It will not "magically turn" at "2" particular points, it's a self powered system that does not need to rely on passive mechanical interventions at brake runs/launches to turn like traditional spin coasters you keep repeatedly mentioning. Why are you not capable of figuring out how a modern roller coaster train might be able to track exactly where it is on a track and have a method of following a turn profile in real time. Especially when there are other Disney rides out there that have far more complicated synchronization issues to overcome.


The "you're all pixie dusters" type response to people who call out what you are saying is not a valid and honestly and anyone who knows the podcast I am on would laugh at you.
You seem to think quite highly of your knowledge of all things coasters. I'm well aware of coaster technologies, and have been riding them for decades all over the world. Again, I'm sure it can be done. As simply preprogrammed movement that starts from each block, or even from sensors on the track. However, the point has always been "why"? Is it really going to blow minds from moving to face sets and screens? ANy sets seem to be static. Screens on coasters are screeens on coasters.

I still just don't see this ride syncing rotations to keep you pointed towards things being done really to a large extent. And if it is, I don't see it wowing folks like they seem to think it will. THe ride cost an absolute fortune. You know what would have wowed folks? Having the ride stop and a scene where we're looking into the ship, and it is all animatrons, and we slowly go by, before launching off into space past starfield filled screens. THen another slowdown where a bad guy is there in his ship, maybe chasing us a bit. then back to Rocket in a scene, etc.

For almost half a billion bucks, that SHOULD have happened. Not some screens and spheres with projection mapping that you may be turned to see for 4 or 5 seconds as the coaster flys by them.
 

Vinnie Mac

Well-Known Member
You seem to think quite highly of your knowledge of all things coasters. I'm well aware of coaster technologies, and have been riding them for decades all over the world. Again, I'm sure it can be done. As simply preprogrammed movement that starts from each block, or even from sensors on the track. However, the point has always been "why"? Is it really going to blow minds from moving to face sets and screens? ANy sets seem to be static. Screens on coasters are screeens on coasters.

I still just don't see this ride syncing rotations to keep you pointed towards things being done really to a large extent. And if it is, I don't see it wowing folks like they seem to think it will. THe ride cost an absolute fortune. You know what would have wowed folks? Having the ride stop and a scene where we're looking into the ship, and it is all animatrons, and we slowly go by, before launching off into space past starfield filled screens. THen another slowdown where a bad guy is there in his ship, maybe chasing us a bit. then back to Rocket in a scene, etc.

For almost half a billion bucks, that SHOULD have happened. Not some screens and spheres with projection mapping that you may be turned to see for 4 or 5 seconds as the coaster flys by them.
For every 7 positive opinions there's going to be 1 unnecessarily dramatic negative opinion.

Just say it's not going to impress YOU. Saying that it's not going to impress others is assuming the opinions of millions of people in the future, some of those people who haven't even been to a Disney park yet and may be impressed by dang well anything.
 

Giss Neric

Well-Known Member
For every 7 positive opinions there's going to be 1 unnecessarily dramatic negative opinion.

Just say it's not going to impress YOU. Saying that it's not going to impress others is assuming the opinions of millions of people in the future, some of those people who haven't even been to a Disney park yet and may be impressed by dang well anything.
I mean he has always been pessimistic in general when it comes to most topics so nothing is surprising about his opinions anymore. He never runs out of something to nitpick about.
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
It's worth noting that I do in fact know there are set pieces for it to turn to, on top of scenes that I have included some of those in my model using footage from the actual movie because it's very easy for me to imagine how fly by show scenes will help drive the narrative of the ride. Especially when they already have a indoor coaster that uses this. You just seem to be fixated on one particular way in which you think the ride will go down.

It will not "magically turn" at "2" particular points, it's a self powered system that does not need to rely on passive mechanical interventions at brake runs/launches to turn like traditional spin coasters you keep repeatedly mentioning. Why are you not capable of figuring out how a modern roller coaster train might be able to track exactly where it is on a track and have a method of following a turn profile in real time. Especially when there are other Disney rides out there that have far more complicated synchronization issues to overcome.


The "you're all pixie dusters" type response to people who call out what you are saying is not a valid and honestly and anyone who knows the podcast I am on would laugh at you.
I know I will love GotG when it opens in 5 or 6 years…..
 

donsullivan

Premium Member
Note the brand name and logo of the blue sheathing material is blurred out in every single picture. You might think it was for artistic effect, but then you see it continued into all of thr pictures.

Legal and Marketing must have had their way with everything involved in this PR event. Nothing at all in these posts are organic or genuine.
That is no different than what you see on home improvement shows on HGTV where logos and artwork on the walls are blurred. Or grey/black stickers over computer logos on the lids of laptops. This is not some uniquely nefarious thing Disney is doing. If the image is of general construction materials they don’t want to (nor are they authorized to) unlawfully advertise a brand seemingly creating an endorsement of the brand. When it comes to thing like the attraction and ride system, it’s 100% normal for the contract to ban the manufacturer from watermarking images or video of work for hire with their logo since it’s not their product, it’s owned by the party that commissioned the work. Universal Creative does the exact same thing.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
That is no different than what you see on home improvement shows on HGTV where logos and artwork on the walls are blurred. Or grey/black stickers over computer logos on the lids of laptops. This is not some uniquely nefarious thing Disney is doing. If the image is of general construction materials they don’t want to (nor are they authorized to) unlawfully advertise a brand seemingly creating an endorsement of the brand. When it comes to thing like the attraction and ride system, it’s 100% normal for the contract to ban the manufacturer from watermarking images or video of work for hire with their logo since it’s not their product, it’s owned by the party that commissioned the work. Universal Creative does the exact same thing.
“Unlawful advertising” isn’t a thing. And Disney did endorse the product as it’s in the specifications for the project.
 

FigmentFan82

Well-Known Member
“Unlawful advertising” isn’t a thing. And Disney did endorse the product as it’s in the specifications for the project.
yeah don't think that term is a thing, but used to work for big big company. legal dept would be crazy with some of their asks when we released videos that had other brands in the background etc. less to do with us advertising them, and more to protect ourselves if that brand didn't want to be in the video/picture etc
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
Unlawful advertising” isn’t a thing. And Disney did endorse the product as it’s in the specifications for the project.
It actually is, it just does not relate to the blurring of logos in video or still images.

The blurring of logos is typically more about trademark infringement. Now technically, displaying a company's logo in a TV show or movie is not illegal, but in a country where anyone can sue anyone for anything, most people err on the side of caution and either blur out logos or make up fake companies. (eg Pear Computers)

 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
So is it a safe assumption that this is a cross between Mummy and Gringott’s?

I don't think it will have that many show stops to be as comparable. From what I have seen, there will be slower portions like block brakes where a brief animation or scene will be on a screen. The biggest narrative moment being when your vehicles rotate to backwards and launch in that direction as characters interact through brief visual and on board audio.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
It actually is, it just does not relate to the blurring of logos in video or still images.

The blurring of logos is typically more about trademark infringement. Now technically, displaying a company's logo in a TV show or movie is not illegal, but in a country where anyone can sue anyone for anything, most people err on the side of caution and either blur out logos or make up fake companies. (eg Pear Computers)


It is less err on the side of caution and more "If that company wants our hit show/movie franchise/theme parks to project and broadcast their name, they are going to have to pay us an endorsement fee.

This is why it is hard for Vekoma to even brag on their Disney projects at tradeshows like IAAPA. Disney likes to sign a deal to give them more money, and they brag less.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
It actually is, it just does not relate to the blurring of logos in video or still images.

The blurring of logos is typically more about trademark infringement. Now technically, displaying a company's logo in a TV show or movie is not illegal, but in a country where anyone can sue anyone for anything, most people err on the side of caution and either blur out logos or make up fake companies. (eg Pear Computers)

That article straight up says it’s not illegal. Slapping the Coca-Cola logo onto something could get you into trouble but someone just using the product isn’t an issue.

This is why it is hard for Vekoma to even brag on their Disney projects at tradeshows like IAAPA. Disney likes to sign a deal to give them more money, and they brag less.
Vendors sign contracts that limit their advertising. Different vendors are able to pull different deals. Vekoma has been able to push for more and even got Disney to openly acknowledge their involvement in this project.

Selecting a material, if indeed the contract specified a brand vs just a specification is not automatically an endorsement of that product.
Large companies like Disney maintain their own master specifications so that they can control the companies. Disney maintains their own list of approved vendors for products and will even directly purchase many building materials usually purchased by the contractor themselves. Disney also doesn’t seemed concerned about the thousands who see the logo right there at the park.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
Vendors sign contracts that limit their advertising. Different vendors are able to pull different deals. Vekoma has been able to push for more and even got Disney to openly acknowledge their involvement in this project.
That is recent as Disney does not have to shell out as much money as they would pay more to block their specific promotional efforts to other companies at tradeshows and the like.


GM literally pays in the billions for those logos and branding all over Test Track and the resort. Disney is not letting anyone get their company out there for free.
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
That article straight up says it’s not illegal. Slapping the Coca-Cola logo onto something could get you into trouble but someone just using the product isn’t an issue.


Vendors sign contracts that limit their advertising. Different vendors are able to pull different deals. Vekoma has been able to push for more and even got Disney to openly acknowledge their involvement in this project.


Large companies like Disney maintain their own master specifications so that they can control the companies. Disney maintains their own list of approved vendors for products and will even directly purchase many building materials usually purchased by the contractor themselves. Disney also doesn’t seemed concerned about the thousands who see the logo right there at the park.
It actually is, it just does not relate to the blurring of logos in video or still images.

The blurring of logos is typically more about trademark infringement. Now technically, displaying a company's logo in a TV show or movie is not illegal, but in a country where anyone can sue anyone for anything, most people err on the side of caution and either blur out logos or make up fake companies. (eg Pear Computers)

I stated exactly that.
 

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

Top Bottom