EPCOT Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[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.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Space Mountain doesn't try to force a story on a roller coaster where it does not belong and use screens to tell said story.

Invisible oxygen dome.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

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.

I agree. I think I was in the minority - even in my own family. My point was more it was my extreme connection to the attractions. The brand benefit was ancillary.

There also was a shift in marketing approach from the late 70s to late 90s. The idea of brand placement, synergy, etc. really took off. And ROI calculations changed, especially when it was just "goodwill". So Disney changed as did the sponsors, leaving the model less desirable for both (as you said).

 

[LittleBuford]

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.

Just to complicate things a bit, I’m quoting an old post of mine that discusses a 1984 magazine review of EPCOT Center in which the presence of commercial sponsors at the park is very much called out. Unfortunately, the link I provided in my post is now dead, but I assure you I quoted and characterised the review accurately.

I posted this in another thread long ago, and your point about corporate sponsorship reminded me of it:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ADEDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA16&dq=epcot a second year&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q=epcot a second year&f=false

It's a review of EPCOT written in 1984 and published in the magazine Cruise Travel. The pervasiveness of corporate sponsorship is something noted (and criticised) by the author. The whole article offers a fascinating (if limited) snapshot of how the park was viewed by at least some people in its early days. A particularly telling excerpt: "But the bad news is that Epcot remains a disturbing dichotomy of some truly fine, interesting experiences coupled with others that too often are more commercialized than they should be—in many cases ill-conceived, repetitious, time-wasting and just plain boring."

 

[UNCgolf]

Just to complicate things a bit, I’m quoting an old post of mine that discusses a 1984 magazine review of EPCOT Center in which the presence of commercial sponsors at the park is very much called out. Unfortunately, the link I provided in my post is now dead, but I assure you I quoted and characterised the review accurately.

That's not surprising to me at all. I just think that was a minority experience of the park.

I also strongly disagree about repetitious, time-wasting, and boring activities, although that is, of course, completely subjective (I tend to find roller coasters repetitious and boring and I'm certainly in the minority there). Admittedly I didn't visit EPCOT in 1984, but I remember loving every single thing I did/saw there when visiting as a child in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

It's interesting that the reviewer apparently considered most of the World Showcase a waste of time, based on other comments in that original thread, and also that at least some of the commercialism complaint was pointed at the World Showcase instead of being focused on Future World.

 

[sedati]

Even in the preview book that predates the park (that I still have today) touted each and every sponsorship. It wasn't until the problems with the Valdez oil spill that I realized I held a very favorable view of Exxon and it was due mostly to their sponsorship of Universe of Energy, aka the dinosaur attraction at EPCOT Center that I loved so much. The other was this:

Now, that Lego set isn't an ad for Exxon, but I loved playing with it and it too gave a lasting positive view on a megacorp I knew nothing else about and it lasted a good long while.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

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.

I joined this forum when Pandora was in the works solely to complain about it. I've never stopped complaining in my heart, but it does no good to complain about it here. I debated calling myself BeastlyKingdommeGuy. I still want them to build it someday. It's too good.

 

[LittleBuford]

That's not surprising to me at all. I just think that was a minority experience of the park.

I also strongly disagree about repetitious, time-wasting, and boring activities, although that is, of course, completely subjective (I tend to find roller coasters repetitious and boring and I'm certainly in the minority there). Admittedly I didn't visit EPCOT in 1984, but I remember loving every single thing I did/saw there when visiting as a child in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

I also don’t share the reviewer’s opinion that the park was boring, though I do think he has a point about the corporate sponsorship being a little heavy-handed at times.

I just found some new, active, links showing all three pages of the review, including this gem:

Spoiler: 1984 review of EPCOT

ETA: Having reread the review carefully, I must correct myself a little: it’s commercialism in all its forms, rather than corporate sponsorship specifically, that the reviewer criticises. His swipe at Exxon is accompanied by complaints about all the merchandise being hawked at World Showcase.

 

[Jrb1979]

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.

My only real complaint about new Disney attractions is how much secrecy there is during construction. I know part of that is they are usually built inside a building. They market the ride heavily once finished but in between the announcement of the new ride and til it's finished they only say the odd thing.

I look at how other parks show off construction constantly when they are building a new attraction. Disney is the only one who goes out of its way to hide what they are doing. When Velocicoaster was being built, it was fascinating watching the construction of it. Vloggers would go out of their way to show it. I think out of all the Disney vloggers only Tim Tracker seems to show off construction updates.

 

[rle4lunch]

Space Mountain doesn't try to force a story on a roller coaster where it does not belong and use screens to tell said story.

Hyper Space Mountain tried, semi successfully

 

[UNCgolf]

ETA: Having reread the review carefully, I must correct myself a little: it’s commercialism in all its forms, rather than corporate sponsorship specifically, that the reviewer criticises. His swipe at Exxon is accompanied by complaints about all the merchandise being hawked at World Showcase.

It's an interesting read, and matches up with what I posted above (I think I edited while you were writing your comment) based on other comments from that original thread.

It seems like the reviewer was much higher on Future World than World Showcase, which obviously ties in with your point that they were more upset about commercialism in general than corporate sponsorship. It also feels a bit strange to complain about commercialism at a Disney park -- I'm not sure what they expected. I also wonder what they'd have to say about the parks today, which are definitely even more commercial than they were in the 1980s!

 

[Disney Analyst]

I also don’t share the reviewer’s opinion that the park was boring, though I do think he has a point about the corporate sponsorship being a little heavy-handed at times.

I just found some new, active, links showing all three pages of the review, including this gem:

View attachment 606550

Spoiler: 1984 review of EPCOT

ETA: Having reread the review carefully, I must correct myself a little: it’s commercialism in all its forms, rather than corporate sponsorship specifically, that the reviewer criticises. His swipe at Exxon is accompanied by complaints about all the merchandise being hawked at World Showcase.

How interesting! Never read a review from the early years of Epcot. I only first experienced in 2013. Before that my only knowledge was a Simpsons episode that made fun of how boring Epcot was.

(Spoiler: I didn’t find it boring in 2013).

 

[Rich Brownn]

I also don’t share the reviewer’s opinion that the park was boring, though I do think he has a point about the corporate sponsorship being a little heavy-handed at times.

I just found some new, active, links showing all three pages of the review, including this gem:

View attachment 606550

Spoiler: 1984 review of EPCOT

ETA: Having reread the review carefully, I must correct myself a little: it’s commercialism in all its forms, rather than corporate sponsorship specifically, that the reviewer criticises. His swipe at Exxon is accompanied by complaints about all the merchandise being hawked at World Showcase.

In UoE, besides the two signs in the pre-show area, the name Exxon is said exactly... once. At the beginning of the pre-show. (Exxon presents... with the tiger running towards you). The rest of the movie was about how energy moves from one type to another (and was projected on a screen made up of moving blocks).

 

[LittleBuford]

I also wonder what they'd have to say about the parks today, which are definitely even more commercial than they were in the 1980s!

There's more merch, Disney branding, and upselling, certainly, but the corporate stuff has been toned down. I'm less bothered by Disney's own commercialism than I am by outside companies using attractions to push their services and products, though I realise others may not draw the same distinction.

 

[LittleBuford]

In UoE, besides the two signs in the pre-show area, the name Exxon is said exactly... once. At the beginning of the pre-show. (Exxon presents... with the tiger running towards you). The rest of the movie was about how energy moves from one type to another (and was projected on a screen made up of moving blocks).

I've seen it said elsewhere that the original Universe of Energy read as a grand advert for and vindication of fossil fuels. Exxon clearly had a vested interest in selling such a message, regardless of how prominently featured its name was in the attraction itself.

 

[etc98]

I also don’t share the reviewer’s opinion that the park was boring, though I do think he has a point about the corporate sponsorship being a little heavy-handed at times.

I just found some new, active, links showing all three pages of the review, including this gem:

View attachment 606550

Spoiler: 1984 review of EPCOT

ETA: Having reread the review carefully, I must correct myself a little: it’s commercialism in all its forms, rather than corporate sponsorship specifically, that the reviewer criticises. His swipe at Exxon is accompanied by complaints about all the merchandise being hawked at World Showcase.

Wow that review is fascinating. $18 a day for adults. But there’s long, long lines. 15 minutes to a half an hour! How insane is that?!

 

[LittleBuford]

Wow that review is fascinating. $18 a day for adults. But there’s long, long lines. 15 minutes to a half an hour! How insane is that?!

It really is fascinating, isn't it? When I originally found the review scanned on Google Books a few years ago, there was another (more positive) one published the previous year in the same magazine. The link is now broken, unfortunately, but I recall it being equally interesting.