News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[DisneyDebRob]

You're comparing a functional animatronic to a non-functional one. The point @FerretAfros was making wasn't that it should've been in permanent B-mode but rather that the complexity (and cost of maintenance) should have matched the length of time it would be seen. There were ways to achieve a similar effect without pouring massive amounts of money into it and making it into an absolute maintenance nightmare. And because it's an overly expensive fleeting vision, the creators put it in a position where neglect was more likely than not.

I know the point he was making. As I said in my post I was just commenting on how wonderful the original Yeti was. Nothing more.

 

[tommyhawkins]

Just because something has a use does not mean that it isn't also wasteful. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Watching Harmonious, it's not really clear what purpose the barges serve. Yes, the video boards, fountains, and moving arms are used in the show, but there's really nothing in the show that is so unique and specialized that it couldn't have been created in a different way. Unlike the earth barge in Illuminations, the dragon in Fantasmic!, or even the kites for the lame KiteTails "daytime activation", there's nothing to imply that this infrastructure was purpose-built for this show. It was incredibly expensive, but isn't utilized in a meaningful way.

I'll use Everest as an example once again, not because it was a low-budget creation, but rather because of its extravagant spending. The yeti AA is a perfect example of wasteful spending: millions and millions of dollars were poured into a figure that could only be seen for a couple seconds of ride time. Even when the ride was brand new and everything worked perfectly, it was a blink-and-you-miss-it moment that was over in a flash.

The same impact could have been made with a far cheaper figure that had a more limited range of motion; perhaps not as limited as the old Abominable Snowman on the Matterhorn, but not as complex as what got built. Guests speeding by in a dark cavern can only process so much in the 5 seconds that it's visible. In addition to saving construction costs, it almost certainly would have been a more reliable long-term solution with easier maintenance, to the point that its malfunction wouldn't be one of WDW's greatest ongoing embarrassments 15+ years later.

I know that many people online like to denigrate "value engineering" as a simple cost-cutting measure, but that's not what it is at all: it's a way to ensure that the money you're spending is being used wisely. Is this function necessary? Is there another way to achieve the same goal that's less expensive? What are the lifecycle costs of the proposed solution? Are we being good stewards of the money we're given? Is there a way that we can get more for less?

Many classic Imagineering tricks rely on fooling the eye into thinking there's more there than was actually built: it's the limited-motion figure that you pass so quickly that you think it's fully articulated; it's the window in the background, implying a world beyond the immediate scene; it's the painted flat backgrounds that are out of focus enough to make you think they're fully dimensional. It's like a striptease, keeping you interested in what's just barely out of view, inviting you to imagine a world of possibilities. These are the parlor tricks on which Disney Parks built their trade, and which are being sadly forgotten in the day of endless "immersion" where every element is elevated to a starring role and the backgrounds are devoid of detail as a result.

In the case of the Harmonious barges, it's not really clear what their function is, or why they were built the way that they were. The arms flail around during the show, but don't have any real purpose. The fountains aren't especially expressive or impressive. The central ring is dark for a huge chunk of the show, can't be seen from the majority of the viewing areas, and has no reason for its shape or size. The lighting systems and video boards are fine I guess, but there are countless other ways to achieve those elements that are less obtrusive during the day. Even though all this was built specifically for Harmonious, the show doesn't feel like a natural fit for the unique infrastructure.

In many ways, the show feels like it was designed around existing infrastructure that was left over from a previous show, rather than one designed from scratch with custom-made equipment. And for a very expensive purpose-built show that ruins daytime sightlines throughout the most scenic parts of the theme park, that's quite a damning indictment.

I have no reason to believe that the Guardians coaster will be any less wasteful; in fact, with its massive budget and physical footprint for a single attraction, it seems even more likely.

Thats a lot of words just to say you don't like Harmonious and think Illuminations was better.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Thats a lot of words just to say you don't like Harmonious and think Illuminations was better.

Anyone who actually read all those words would see that merely comparing Harmonious to Illuminations was really not their point.

 

[tommyhawkins]

Anyone who actually read all those words would see that merely comparing Harmonious to Illuminations was really not their point.

the point being that the barges were a waste of money because *they* feel they dont create a good enough show that warrants them? They then went on to compare a broken Animatronic that had one single purpose to barges that have the ability to be programmed in a multitude of ways not necessarily present in Harmonious. I suspect that if Disney had delivered a show that nailed their exact vision of what Epcot and its nighttime show they would be less critical and slower to label them a waste of money.

 

[Casper Gutman]

the point being that the barges were a waste of money because *they* feel they dont create a good enough show that warrants them? They then went on to compare a broken Animatronic that had one single purpose to barges that have the ability to be programmed in a multitude of ways not necessarily present in Harmonious. I suspect that if Disney had delivered a show that nailed their exact vision of what Epcot and its nighttime show they would be less critical and slower to label them a waste of money.

Do you really think that those barges will outlast Harmonious?

And yes, if the barges were a significant, integral component of the show the vast cost would be more justified. In the process, the show would feel more coherent and, overall, stronger. That’s sort of the point, I thought.

 

[MisterPenguin]

There are other threads for Harmonious and EPCOT in general. This is...

Y'all want...

News - Reflections of Earth confirmed to be replaced by Harmonious

https://www.wdwmagic.com/attractions/reflections-of-earth/news/17sep2018-replacement-for-illuminations-reflections-of-earth-confirmed-to-debut-in-2019.htm

forums.wdwmagic.com

News - Big changes coming to EPCOT's Future World?

I think they’re planting a berm of trees around GOTG. The other two areas you mentioned also had trees planted around them, they just haven’t grown enough to hide everything yet, but I’ve already noticed a difference in how they’re hiding more of Pandora. The time involved is easy to forget...

forums.wdwmagic.com

 

[castlecake2.0]

Imagine you go and order a Cheeseburger - it's pretty simple, bun, burger, cheese, some toppings; the ingredients are too good to mess up.

Imagine your burger arrives, and it's good - the chef put some fun twist on it, a topping you didn't expect, but it's still basically a cheeseburger, and you like it. Which is what you hoped for. Would have been cool if it blew your mind, but you weren't expecting that - in your mind it did its job.

Imagine you get the check and your burger alone cost more than the entire meal of the rest of the table put together. Doesn't that change your perception of it? Do you just pay the bill? Or do you call the waiter over and say "there must be some mistake"?

Makes sense, but most guests are not looking up how much each attraction cost to build as they experience it.

 

[fgmnt]

Sorry, this isn’t true. Before Disney horribly broke the parks, back when park capacity was capable of handling attendance levels, Small World and PotC were just as frequently walk on as the EPCOT rides. And if the classic EPCOT rides existed in the current broken parks, they’d have waits similar to the MK omnis.

By the way, it’s just hilarious to pretend Journey lacked “enduring popularity” in a week featuring seven hour lines for plastic Figment buckets. At a festival featuring huge amounts of Figment - statues, wall decorations, merchandise.

I do not think that you would see an equivalent fervor of you shuttered any of those 3 attractions at MK like you have for JII. Maybe if you shuttered the DL equivalents/progenitors, but there is a level of militancy the WDW crowd with Figment and Dreamfinder that I do not think would very easily manifest among DL folks with any of those attractions.

I can’t remember the exact numbers, but I believe the fully built out Future World had the same hourly capacity as MK at the same time.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Makes sense, but most guests are not looking up how much each attraction cost to build as they experience it.

But guests will notice the huge crowds, long lines, and overall lack of capacity, in large part caused by the fact that each ride Disney builds costs about four times as much as it should.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I'll use Everest as an example once again, not because it was a low-budget creation, but rather because of its extravagant spending. The yeti AA is a perfect example of wasteful spending: millions and millions of dollars were poured into a figure that could only be seen for a couple seconds of ride time. Even when the ride was brand new and everything worked perfectly, it was a blink-and-you-miss-it moment that was over in a flash.

Marc Davis pointed out that while the auctioneer in Pirates was more sophisticated than Mr. Lincoln, that was ultimately pointless because you only see him for such a short period of time.*

The reason why World of Motion got away with having 200 AAs was that most of them were limited in what they could do.

The Ballroom in the Haunted Mansion is impressive for its scale and volume of animation, not because the individual figures are so elaborate. The dancers are just dummies on turntables, but it works 50 years later.

WED of old knew where to spend their money and how to spread it across the whole project, as you said.

*I disagree with him on this specific example, but Marc, despite not being a robotic engineer, knew the limitations of the technology of the time and what could realistically sustain an audiences attention. It's why the vignettes in the Bear Jamboree are a certain length.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Marc Davis pointed out that while the auctioneer in Pirates was more sophisticated than Mr. Lincoln, that was ultimately pointless because you only see him for such a short period of time.*

The reason why World of Motion got away with having 200 AAs was that most of them were limited in what they could do.

The Ballroom in the Haunted Mansion is impressive for its scale and volume of animation, not because the individual figures are so elaborate. The dancers are just dummies on turntables, but it works 50 years later.

WED of old knew where to spend their money and how to spread it across the whole project, as you said.

*I disagree with him on this specific example, but Marc, despite not being a robotic engineer, knew the limitations of the technology of the time and what could realistically sustain an audiences attention. It's why the vignettes in the Bear Jamboree are a certain length.

Also, the fact that the figures in Pirates and WoM were so charmingly, skillfully sculpted went a long way to covering limited motion. The caricatured faces, created by incredibly skilled cartoonists, along with an underlying sense of humor in the design of the scenes can compensate for a lot. The figure in the Pandora Boat ride is incredibly, magnificently mobile, but vastly less appealing then any random figure from WoM.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Makes sense, but most guests are not looking up how much each attraction cost to build as they experience it.

True, most guests aren't - but we are, which is why it's relevant to this conversation.

Not to mention that guests, knowingly or not, will be tasked with footing the bill for the enormous cost of this attraction with yet more price increases.

 

[Incomudro]

Also, the fact that the figures in Pirates and WoM were so charmingly, skillfully sculpted went a long way to covering limited motion. The caricatured faces, created by incredibly skilled cartoonists, along with an underlying sense of humor in the design of the scenes can compensate for a lot. The figure in the Pandora Boat ride is incredibly, magnificently mobile, but vastly less appealing then any random figure from WoM.

There's so much going on in the Haunted Mansion Ballroom scene, that it amazes me to this day.
The candles being blown out, the couple toasting on the chandelier, the skulls rising from the organ...
And let's not forget It's all done with the Pepper's Ghost effect.

 

[SplashJacket]

I have a friend who is a die-hard Disney fan (frequent visits to the parks, Disney cruises, etc.), but she's never been to Epcot because she's never been old enough to drink around the world. But now, with Cosmic Rewind opening, she plans on going.

I know Cosmic Rewind may not be what Epcot deserves or needs, but I fully expect it to accomplish exacting what it set it to do.

 

[UNCgolf]

The figure in the Pandora Boat ride is incredibly, magnificently mobile, but vastly less appealing then any random figure from WoM.

I know I like NRJ a lot more than most people here seem to, but that AA, while exceptionally impressive, is almost superfluous to the ride. The ride works (at least for me) because you're floating through an incredibly detailed alien rainforest. It's that detailed setting that matters, and the screens that show animals moving off in the distance through the foliage actually work very well and are a perfect example of how to use screens to enhance an experience without dominating it.

If the AA was removed entirely, it would not affect my enjoyment at all. It feels like a waste of money because of that -- it's not really important to the ride experience that exists, as opposed to some theoretical one where the ride continues past the AA into other things.

 

[Bocabear]

I know I like NRJ a lot more than most people here seem to, but that AA, while exceptionally impressive, is almost superfluous to the ride. The ride works (at least for me) because you're floating through an incredibly detailed alien rainforest. It's that detailed setting that matters, and the screens that show animals moving off in the distance through the foliage actually work very well and are a perfect example of how to use screens to enhance an experience without dominating it.

If the AA was removed entirely, it would not affect my enjoyment at all. It feels like a waste of money because of that -- it's not really important to the ride experience that exists, as opposed to some theoretical one where the ride continues past the AA into other things.

I disagree...I think the AA adds the last touch of realism and detail necessary to make it all more believable... Look at the difference in the Mexico Pavilion when they replaced the screen with the animatronic Three Caballeros... HUGE change... It was just that last touch that you really needed...Quite frankly, I think they could use a couple more...

 

[Incomudro]

I have a friend who is a die-hard Disney fan (frequent visits to the parks, Disney cruises, etc.), but she's never been to Epcot because she's never been old enough to drink around the world. But now, with Cosmic Rewind opening, she plans on going.

I know Cosmic Rewind may not be what Epcot deserves or needs, but I fully expect it to accomplish exacting what it set it to do.

Never been to Epcot because she wasn't old enough to drink?
Those are odd priorities.

 

[Incomudro]

I know I like NRJ a lot more than most people here seem to, but that AA, while exceptionally impressive, is almost superfluous to the ride. The ride works (at least for me) because you're floating through an incredibly detailed alien rainforest. It's that detailed setting that matters, and the screens that show animals moving off in the distance through the foliage actually work very well and are a perfect example of how to use screens to enhance an experience without dominating it.

If the AA was removed entirely, it would not affect my enjoyment at all. It feels like a waste of money because of that -- it's not really important to the ride experience that exists, as opposed to some theoretical one where the ride continues past the AA into other things.

I haven't ridden Navi, haven't been to WDW since it opened - but will finally be there this March.
My impression may not be right, or might change after riding it but I would prefer Disney had used a couple of more simple animal AA's like Jungle Cruise does.
An animals head rising from the water, some animals peaking from behind the trees...
Rather than spend all of their money on one very complex AA.

 

[UNCgolf]

I disagree...I think the AA adds the last touch of realism and detail necessary to make it all more believable... Look at the difference in the Mexico Pavilion when they replaced the screen with the animatronic Three Caballeros... HUGE change... It was just that last touch that you really needed...Quite frankly, I think they could use a couple more...

It could definitely use more AAs -- I wasn't arguing against the use of AAs in the ride.

My point was that because that one really impressive AA only shows up at the end, it doesn't really do much in the context of the ride IMO. I think it actually turns the ride into a disappointment for some people, because when they see that AA they think it's just the start of something else rather than the end of the ride.

 

[SplashJacket]

Never been to Epcot because she wasn't old enough to drink?
Those are odd priorities.

Oh, I totally agree, but the general public largely looks at Animal Kingdom as a zoo and Epcot as a bar. Until they add more flashiness to Animal Kingdom and Epcot, those perceptions will exist within the General Public regardless of what we think.