News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[trainplane3]

Rode UoE today. I think it's hilarious how there's no more Ellen or snake dinosaur AA in the ride. That scene is just sad. Has the audio, but nothing else.

 

[Kman101]

I agree.

Typo on my part. And no it doesn't have to be. At least to me. Unfortunately so far the implementation of IPs isn't how it should be and they've been done poorly. I understand why people feel how they feel, and especially shoving IPs into Epcot. But we've down this same discussion road before.

 

[Kman101]

It's only turned into a dirty word because Disney seems to be so short sighted with their use lately.

I agree with this and have said as much. But the idea that IP alone is bad doesn't work for me. The implementation has been bad. It doesn't have to be.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

I agree with this and have said as much. But the idea that IP alone is bad doesn't work for me. The implementation has been bad. It doesn't have to be.

Sadly, IP has become such a blanket and frankly "dirty" term lately, and its all because of a continued misinterpretation of what it means. By definition, anything that exists in the parks, whether originally conceived by Imagineers or based on a movie property IS an IP.

I agree that the implementation is where things go wrong. Guardians in Epcot (and TOT) and Frozen in Norway all reek of quick solutions to the "problem" of "we have a hot franchise on our hands, where can we shove it in as quick as possible?"

 

[The_Jobu]

Typo on my part.

I know, just having fun.

 

[Kman101]

I know, just having fun.

I know lol. I laughed.

 

[jhendrix]

So if this is supposed to be a reference to WDW/Epcot...... what ride are they referring to? I can't remember anything from the early/mid 80's with aliens in it. The only space related rides I can even think of were Space Mountain, Mission to Mars, and maybe part of Horizons. Am I missing something here? Is this really supposed to refer to when he visited Epcot as a child?

No, sorry, my post was confusing. The paragraph I quoted from Marvel Wiki was Star Lord's original backstory. It wasn't Epcot specifically, but some generic amusement park.

But as Marvel does when they adapt the comics into movie form, they also take the general ideas from the origin story and add new specifics. That seems to be what Marvel/Disney will be doing for GOTG in Epcot.

Epcot makes sense with Star Lord's origin story. However, Star Lord doesn't make sense for Epcot.

In other words, if they were to make a movie/One-Shot or new comic where Quill actually visited Epcot, that would make sense in the MCU. But to put a ride featuring the Guardians in Epcot, does not make sense.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I am a bit confused as to who is in charge of this project? Is Joe Rohde the lead imaginner of the ride, while Tom Fitzgerald is the lead imagineer of Epcot's changes in general?

Also, super heroes in general have stood the test of time. I think they should have a new land in DHS that doesn't replace ToT or RnRC, but a lot of things would be different if I made the decisions.

This is illuminating...

Not quite true, if you really want to know. Everyone on the internet likes to make it seem like Bob and Bob are the only ones making decisions. Iger has so much more to deal with than just the Parks. He weighs in when necessary, and he can send missives if someone else makes a convincing case to do something. In the case of Marvel, of course he wants to make wide use of the IP in the parks. He pushed through a huge deal that he has to answer for.

But usually a lot of the decision making is done at a lower level, then brought to him for sign off or input and changes. He didn't say put Guardians in Epcot. He said let's see how we we can make use of this within the parks, Consumer Products, Licensing, etc. Then it's up to WDI and Chapek's group to figure out where things fit - literally - then go back with concepts and ideas, first to the individual parks heads and Bob Chapek, then to Iger. WDI and P&R and multiple other divisions within Disney worked to build a new strategy for Studios over months.

It's not a matter of simply being told by an exec to put IPs in. They came up with a strategy, based on input from many parties, including Chapek and Iger, then Chapek and Iger signed off. Disney is a corporation. Decisions are made with the input of many people. Bob and Bob listen to the people they have around them. Attractions are designed and built with lots of people and departments giving input. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it's too many cooks, but it is the way it works.

And..

Actual answer, without getting too specific: Energy needed something new. It is way past its sell by date, more money than worth it to put into new AA's and projectors and FX and the amount of stuff in there that is now due to be replaced, especially when you know it needs either a new attraction or a complete update. Satisfaction ratings aren't great and daily numbers aren't near what they once were. There are blue sky concepts proposed by WDI based on a number of factors: IPs other divisions have asked to get into the parks. IPs the parks want to capitalize on. Ideas WDI has to incorporate into the parks. Ideas Creative Entertainment has to incorporate into the parks. Ideas executive management has to incorporate into the park. Etc, etc. The ideas may be specific to a park or an attraction within a park or a land within a park or World or Land or they may just be an idea that then gets floated by various execs involved. The concept or concepts are narrowed via all the relevant parties, then WDI gets to work. Other times WDI proposes what they want to do from the start, then the parks management give feedback, then WDI goes to work.

In the case of Epcot and FW, WDI has been working a master plan in coordination with TDO and Epcot's management that included Energy. Would they put up a fight? No. They would have questions and concerns that needed to be addressed through the process. They tend to defer to the creative team that's led by the guy who was on the original Epcot team. That team is going to put the best attraction they can in there, and the management groups all know that. Believe it or not, they look forward to new attractions as much as everyone else. We don't get to redo major attractions all that often. Whether they personally agree with the request to incorporate an IP or not, they are excited for something new. There were multiple ideas for Energy, and everyone signed off on the attraction that is planned. Disney runs by committee more than most realize, and there's a lot of factors that get considered in all of these decisions. So, plans considered. Meetings had. Ideas discussed. Some execs liked certain ideas over others, but this is the idea that was greenlit. Safe to say everyone is happy to have something new in there.

 

[Karakasa]

I've been thinking about the earlier question regarding the "canonicity" of the attraction and I think the simple answer is- it's yet another seperate verse. Supposing M:B at DCA is a good idea of what to expect regarding story, it's likely that it's just, in the theme parks "verse", the Guardians of the Galaxy are more similar to their movie versions, but also borrow from the comics. For instance, the Collector actually still has a collection, Cosmo seems to be a part of their group, and Mantis is only a friend of Rocket's rather than a part of the group as she seems to become by the end of GotG2.

 

[aladdin2007]

I don't like it either. I also don't like it for Mission Breakout either, but when you have Disneylander's think it's "cute" Rocket refers to seeing Disneyland ... sigh, it just validates them continuing to do it. They think it makes it OK but it doesn't.

agree....but I just hope whatever the title is of the new attraction its better than the six flags sounding mission breakout. Please Disney do something better here! Guardians of Energy please! And I will miss the soundtrack to the ellen show, Im expecting guardians will be nothing but rock songs with no original score or anything epcot fitting, but hopefully Im wrong.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Anyone here ride Mission Breakout? I tried to review the YouTube ride through as open minded as possible. But the whole attraction really seems forced: the story and the creative execution, even the CM shtick. I think the property is great, so glad we'll be getting a new attraction build (location aside), but this Tower of the Guardians remix seems no bueno. Right? Any more news on Epcot attraction, seems like a massive pre-show area, what about ride system and new tech?

Mission Breakout is a fun ride that's on an island right now. The backstory of the ride absolutely makes sense with the exception of the setting actually taking place in Disney California Adventure. That part is strange, but the tour of the Collector's collection is well within the universe that Guardians lives in.

It's a better ride than DCA's tower, but it's poorly paced. Frenetic rides (I'm looking at you Transformers) can still be fun, but looking at a theme park attraction as art, the better paced rides are generally better (Spider-Man vs Transformers is a good comparison for the same reason).

 

[RSoxNo1]

Horizons is the only Epcot attraction that I can think of. Nothing with aliens though.

That's part of Peter Quill's back story but visiting Epcot and not seeing aliens is still very much in line with his character. The question is will they make this anything more than lip service to shoehorn an attraction, or will it be a genuine treatment. As what will essentially be a new build, there's little to no excuse for not making this a reasonable fit for Epcot.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I am not a fan of this self referential classic Epcot backstory. It's a lazy way to incorporate a thrill ride and blend it with nostalgia. If you are going to change the mission of the park and dilute the pavilions to push your movie franchises let's not pretend and give us this wink of sentimentality. Epcot is not a theme. " human achievements are celebrated through imagination, wonders of enterprise and concepts of a future that promises new and exciting benefits for all." is a theme.

If it's a lazy approach like they did in DCA, then I absolutely agree with you. However, EPCOT Center is a place that would be right in Peter Quill's wheelhouse. I'd like to wait to see the execution before I dismiss it as lazy.

 

[cheezbat]

They're going to have to do A LOT to make Guardians fit in Epcot. I don't see it happening.
Doesn't matter though, because the general public will eat this thing up and it'll become the most popular ride in the park.

I still hope they save and reuse the dinosaurs.

 

[Movielover]

Swell. I can't wait to not watch those either!!

Speak for yourself, for a Marvel Fan like myself I couldn't be happier at the moment!

Oh, I'm so sorry, I forgot that some people on here find this offensive...

Trigger Warning!

 

[articos]

This is illuminating...



And..

Both Tom and Joe are in the senior exec ranks. Tom is the lead on the entire Epcot project. Joe is the lead on anything to do with Marvel. Fun fact: not as well known as Tom having been part of the Epcot original team, Joe was on the opening team for Epcot as well, in the art dept, during his early years.

 

[articos]

Mission Breakout is a fun ride that's on an island right now. The backstory of the ride absolutely makes sense with the exception of the setting actually taking place in Disney California Adventure. That part is strange, but the tour of the Collector's collection is well within the universe that Guardians lives in.

It's a better ride than DCA's tower, but it's poorly paced. Frenetic rides (I'm looking at you Transformers) can still be fun, but looking at a theme park attraction as art, the better paced rides are generally better (Spider-Man vs Transformers is a good comparison for the same reason).

Right now.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Both Tom and Joe are in the senior exec ranks. Tom is the lead on the entire Epcot project. Joe is the lead on anything to do with Marvel. Fun fact: not as well known as Tom having been part of the Epcot original team, Joe was on the opening team for Epcot as well, in the art dept, during his early years.

He worked with Herb Ryman on the Mexico pavillion.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

@marni1971 , in a word or a short phrase, are you now able to share the thematic direction for Future World?

 

[marni1971]

@marni1971 , in a word or a short phrase, are you now able to share the thematic direction for Future World?

Different.