News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Change your viewing angle, and it's not blocked.
This ship has that central lower fin, and the whole thing is heavy.
It's not a real aircraft (which are light) shored up and mounted, and there was likely no graceful way to display it.
I'm sure Imaginears, and engineers went over a variety of solutions, and probably considered a couple of ships.
It's a fictional craft that most likely couldn't exist as an all weather, prop that's supposed to last for perhaps decades.
This thing doesn’t weigh that much. It’s a prop with a tube steel support structure. There’s no reason it needs to be anything more than a shell. Dropping it onto a too large pedestal is just bad design.
 

durangojim

Well-Known Member
Guardians-of-the-Galaxy_Full_46172.jpg
My question is why couldn’t they have made the stand go behind the wings? Then you’d be able to see all the wings from the front and they could have decorated it with something to make it look like a background. Doesn’t seem that difficult to me.
 

jaxonp

Well-Known Member

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
Original Poster
If they had shown the support structure in the concept are this would be a non issue. Maybe they’ll have a Genie+ photo filter to edit out the support.
I think it all boils to expectation that Disney being Disney would make this thing appear to float and not sit on a stand, especially given the concept art. It seems like this would be one of those challenges that given the time and money could have been done. Although perhaps having already spent $450m on this thing the money just wasn't there to do it. Yet it then begs the question, isn't the reason it cost $450 because of things like floating ships?!?
 

TikibirdLand

Well-Known Member
I think it all boils to expectation that Disney being Disney would make this thing appear to float and not sit on a stand, especially given the concept art. It seems like this would be one of those challenges that given the time and money could have been done. Although perhaps having already spent $450m on this thing the money just wasn't there to do it. Yet it then begs the question, isn't the reason it cost $450 because of things like floating ships?!?
Just wait... The floating ships are INSIDE the building. Remember to duck before the Romulan warship shoots you down!
 

egg

Well-Known Member
The original concept art did show the support… it had an extra fin at the bottom connected to a small thing at the bottom which looks like it would’ve provided a more discreet form of support. They clearly cheaped out at some point during the process.

1643397214326.jpeg
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I think it all boils to expectation that Disney being Disney would make this thing appear to float and not sit on a stand, especially given the concept art. It seems like this would be one of those challenges that given the time and money could have been done. Although perhaps having already spent $450m on this thing the money just wasn't there to do it. Yet it then begs the question, isn't the reason it cost $450 because of things like floating ships?!?

I think this is just one of many recent examples that people need to recalibrate their expectations for what Disney is going to do/willing to spend money on in the future.
 

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

Top Bottom