News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[matt9112]

Honestly the 1970s Space mountain had many AAs in the speedramp exit scenes... And the 1975 version of Space Mountain was far superior to what we have today. It felt like an epic journey from the star tunnels and information portals to the Home of Future Living finale back on Earth...A fun ride, a lot of eye candy and a very long commercial all rolled into one.
but most importantly fun.... remember fun?

I never got to ride that....im not that old. Sadly.

 

[trainplane3]

Personal update plus added snark:

 

[mergatroid]

Honestly the 1970s Space mountain had many AAs in the speedramp exit scenes... And the 1975 version of Space Mountain was far superior to what we have today. It felt like an epic journey from the star tunnels and information portals to the Home of Future Living finale back on Earth...A fun ride, a lot of eye candy and a very long commercial all rolled into one.
but most importantly fun.... remember fun?

But people are complaining that they think there'll be no AA's in the ride and just AA's in the pre-show. Not that you claim to be speaking for them all, however the general consensus on here appears that AA's don't count if they're not in the ride itself so Space Mountain would fail on that count as would many rides. I'm not sure on the fun side of things how any ride would fare before it's even been ridden or experienced by those 'judging it', seems strange even throwing that into the equation? It would be like having a blind date arranged and complaining before it that the person isn't sexy enough, despite having zero idea of how sexy that person is?

 

[sedati]

Honestly the 1970s Space mountain had many AAs in the speedramp exit scenes... And the 1975 version of Space Mountain was far superior to what we have today. It felt like an epic journey from the star tunnels and information portals to the Home of Future Living finale back on Earth...A fun ride, a lot of eye candy and a very long commercial all rolled into one.
but most importantly fun.... remember fun?

Yes, the ad portion (RCA) had animatronics.

 

[Dunston]

It's too bad the Pandoran panthers couldn't have been AAs, standing still, blinking, and moving their head back and forth. That would've been amazing.

 

[Cesar R M]

It would have if it were built today.
Space Mountain doesn't have the tech, because the tech didn't exist when it was designed and built.
It still has some physical props on the lift hill, and those displays of the cars whirling by in the queue.

Reminds me of WestWorld, where stories from the back were simple and good to follow for the sake of "immersing yourself and you enroll in the story".
Now every writer seems to need to outdo themselves by making more and more complex stories and narrower events you can actually immerse yourself

aka story you can follow up and be part of it vs imposed story where you do not have choices.

 

[Bocabear]

Yes, the ad portion (RCA) had animatronics.

It didn't feel like an ad....which was the brilliance of the design... It was optimistic and beautiful... Horizon's felt like an extension of the original thoughts....

 

[sedati]

It didn't feel like an ad....which was the brilliance of the design... It was optimistic and beautiful... Horizon's felt like an extension of the original thoughts....

I loved seeing the animatronic dog. But it was the RCA mascot cleverly done. If the Guardians ride ends with a post show cleverly selling me on Huggies diapers, I'd be miffed.

 

[Bocabear]

I loved seeing the animatronic dog. But it was the RCA mascot cleverly done. If the Guardians ride ends with a post show cleverly selling me on Huggies diapers, I'd be miffed.

No one seems miffed about the auto showroom at the end of Test Track... So yeah if it were for Diapers or Paper Towels I might be miffed...But if it was presented by a tech company and it was soft pedaled the way the Home Of Future Living was, then I sure wouldn't have a problem with it...

 

[sedati]

No one seems miffed about the auto showroom at the end of Test Track... So yeah if it were for Diapers or Paper Towels I might be miffed...But if it was presented by a tech company and it was soft pedaled the way the Home Of Future Living was, then I sure wouldn't have a problem with it...

Yes, it's unfortunate that paying customers are accustomed to the theme park equivalent of infomercials. It's forgivable whereas the idea that the company you paid to get in would promote it's own stuff is a heinous crime.

 

[UNCgolf]

Yes, it's unfortunate that paying customers are accustomed to the theme park equivalent of infomercials. It's forgivable whereas the idea that the company you paid to get in would promote it's own stuff is a heinous crime.

That's quite the strawman you've set up.

None of the corporate sponsored attractions were infomercials or even close to it -- even the areas that did have some sort of corporate advertising were generally exceptionally well done and much more than a simple advertisement. Makin' Memories was maybe the most obvious advertisement, and even it didn't really have much to do with Kodak products; you could have subbed in any film or camera maker and it would have worked just as well.

I've also never seen anyone argue that Disney should never use IP for any rides, nor promote it anywhere in the parks.

People just want good attractions. Disney has historically fared much better building non-IP attractions (corporate sponsored or not) than they have using IP. Of course people don't mind the corporate sponsorship when it leads to all-time great attractions. Nobody complains that they used IP for Rise of the Resistance or Flight of Passage because they're good rides.

 

[sedati]

Nobody complains that they used IP for Flight of Passage

The multiverse is real then because I remember half a decade of outrage over that project's existence.

 

[sedati]

None of the corporate sponsored attractions were infomercials or even close to it -- even the areas that did have some sort of corporate advertising were generally exceptionally well done and much more than a simple advertisement.

It's the magic of the soft sell. Not all ads bash you over the head with the product. Some of the best revolve around a genuine piece of entertainment. Memorable visuals, heartwarming drama, a funny joke. The product often seems inconsequential. But is it less of an ad because the product is barely in it? What's the point in that? Many ads are just about giving you a good feeling about the company or associating it with things you like.

 

[UNCgolf]

The multiverse is real then because I remember half a decade of outrage over that project's existence.

Which proves my point.

People were unhappy about Pandora going into AK because it didn't fit the theme of the park, not because it was IP. Once it was actually built and it turned out that Rohde et al. actually managed to build something that did fit the park, people stopped complaining.

 

[sedati]

Makin' Memories was maybe the most obvious advertisement, and even it didn't really have much to do with Kodak products; you could have subbed in any film or camera maker and it would have worked just as well.

Or the pre-show could have purely entertained and not sold any film or cameras. It could have set up the story, expanded the experience we were about to see. It could have acted as a transition from the main attraction to better render the pavilion a cohesive whole.

 

[sedati]

Which proves my point.

People were unhappy about Pandora going into AK because it didn't fit the theme of the park, not because it was IP. Once it was actually built and it turned out that Rohde et al. actually managed to build something that did fit the park, people stopped complaining.

Well then, lets not talk about any project until complete.

 

[UNCgolf]

It's the magic of the soft sell. Not all ads bash you over the head with the product. Some of the best revolve around a genuine piece of entertainment. Memorable visuals, heartwarming drama, a funny joke. The product often seems inconsequential. But is it less of an ad because the product is barely in it? What's the point in that? Many ads are just about giving you a good feeling about the company or associating it with things you like.

Sure, but I don't think that applies to much of anything built at WDW. That was certainly the reason corporations sponsored pavilions/attractions, but they were so well designed and so far away from being ads that it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of EPCOT visitors couldn't even tell you who sponsored them, especially if they only rode the attractions themselves (it was more obvious in some of the post show areas, although not all).

I loved EPCOT and I couldn't tell you who sponsored most of the pavilions without looking it up; I vividly remember Horizons and have no clue who the sponsor was off the top of my head. I only know Kodak sponsored Imagination because I was reminded of it recently.

 

[UNCgolf]

Well then, lets not talk about any project until complete.

There's nothing wrong with discussing a project before it's complete, but I'd agree that it's unfair to pass any final judgments until it's finished. I'm probably not going to like Guardians very much, but that would be true even if it had no IP (and I like the Guardians IP). I'm just not a big fan of coasters and would prefer a different ride system.

With that said, it's okay for people to complain about stuff like the show building, since that is finished and we know it's not changing.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I actually remember the sponsors vividly. But I liked them because they were tied to the attractions. I never remember the attractions advertising the brand's products. (Not saying they didn't - rather that it didn't stick in my brain.). I remember thinking the Epcot attractions were forward looking, inspiring and cool. So a brand that supported that must be a good company.

 

[UNCgolf]

I actually remember the sponsors vividly. But I liked them because they were tied to the attractions. I never remember the attractions advertising the brand's products. (Not saying they didn't - rather that it didn't stick in my brain.). I remember thinking the Epcot attractions were forward looking, inspiring and cool. So a brand that supported that must be a good company.

This is likely what they were hoping for. That you'd connect the great attraction to the company and have good feelings towards it, as @sedati mentioned above.

I have a feeling it didn't work as well as they wanted and that's one of (although certainly not the only or the biggest) reasons the sponsorship model stopped.