News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

OG Runner

OG Runner

Well-Known Member
egg said:
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.

View attachment 617088
Click to expand...
If you look closely you can see the current brace. They may still cover it up. Look to the right of the bottom wing.
 
No Name

No Name

Well-Known Member
OG Runner said:
If you look closely you can see the current brace. They may still cover it up. Look to the right of the bottom wing.
Click to expand...
I think there’s way too little there to conclude what that is. To me it looks a lot lot more like part of the purple light structure to the right of the entrance (like the one on the left side).
 
OG Runner

OG Runner

Well-Known Member
egg said:
I think there’s way too little there to conclude what that is. To me it looks a lot lot more like part of the purple light structure to the right of the entrance (like the one on the left side).
Click to expand...
You may be right. Just trying to be a little hopeful.
 
Stupido

Stupido

Well-Known Member
I dunno, I think Mary's seen her time in the sun. The reboot flopped horrendously, and the younger generations don't seem to really care about her. I'm 31 years old, and only about 1/4 of people I know my age have seen the original Mary Poppins movie. I only saw the Broadway production. As much as the World Showcase needs rides, I just don't think Mary Poppins is the right IP for it. Not to derail this further, but I'd build an updated Peter Pan's Flight in the UK, and repurpose it's footprint in MK with a Tangled Ride for synergy with the bathrooms.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
jagiord1 said:
I dunno, I think Mary's seen her time in the sun. The reboot flopped horrendously, and the younger generations don't seem to really care about her. I'm 31 years old, and only about 1/4 of people I know my age have seen the original Mary Poppins movie. I only saw the Broadway production. As much as the World Showcase needs rides, I just don't think Mary Poppins is the right IP for it. Not to derail this further, but I'd build an updated Peter Pan's Flight in the UK, and repurpose it's footprint in MK with a Tangled Ride for synergy with the bathrooms.
Click to expand...

The reboot actually didn't flop -- that's a myth. I doubt it made as much as they'd hoped, but it turned a profit for Disney in the theatrical release window and was critically successful. I'm sure it made even more via rentals/sales in the post-theatrical window.

I'd argue that essentially no IP is the right fit for the World Showcase, but as far as anything does fit, Mary Poppins is pretty good for the UK. Winnie the Pooh would be a better fit than Peter Pan as well, but both Peter Pan and Winnie already have Magic Kingdom rides and they're not going to move/rebuild them.

Regardless, the IP itself doesn't matter that much if the ride is great. Mary Poppins just happens to set up well for a good dark ride. I'd be more excited for other potential high quality dark rides than Guardians too.
 
Last edited:
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
UNCgolf said:
The reboot actually didn't flop -- that's a myth. I doubt it made as much as they'd hoped, but it turned a nice profit for Disney in the theatrical release window (likely somewhere between $100-150 million in profit) and was critically successful. I'm sure it made even more via rentals/sales.
Click to expand...
That 'profit' was eaten up by the undisclosed advertising and administration. It is -- as a rule of thump -- equal to half the public budget. Then the theaters get half -- as a rule of thumb -- of the Box Office.

MPR practically just broke even... for the theatrical window. It still made some extra money in the post-theatrical windows.

So, yes, it didn't *bomb.* But given its pedigree, it was disappointing it wasn't a rousing hit.
 
Patcheslee

Patcheslee

Well-Known Member
jagiord1 said:
I dunno, I think Mary's seen her time in the sun. The reboot flopped horrendously, and the younger generations don't seem to really care about her. I'm 31 years old, and only about 1/4 of people I know my age have seen the original Mary Poppins movie. I only saw the Broadway production. As much as the World Showcase needs rides, I just don't think Mary Poppins is the right IP for it. Not to derail this further, but I'd build an updated Peter Pan's Flight in the UK, and repurpose it's footprint in MK with a Tangled Ride for synergy with the bathrooms.
Click to expand...
DD13 didn't care for the remake, she loves the original. Though she is a fan of music heavy movies usually.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
That 'profit' was eaten up by the undisclosed advertising and administration. It is -- as a rule of thump -- equal to half the public budget. Then the theaters get half -- as a rule of thumb -- of the Box Office.

MPR practically just broke even... for the theatrical window. It still made some extra money in the post-theatrical windows.

So, yes, it didn't *bomb.* But given its pedigree, it was disappointing it wasn't a rousing hit.
Click to expand...

I was including the additional marketing budget but forgot about the theater take (which I think is generally around 40%, although I also think Disney typically keeps more than other studios). I should have just used the general 2.5x of production budget rule of thumb, which would give it roughly $25 million in profit. That rule of thumb is generally within 10-15% of the actual profit (or loss).

Mary Poppins Returns probably made $30+ million for Disney overall between the theatrical profit and the post-theatrical window. I agree they were almost certainly hoping for more, but it's not comparable to something like John Carter of Mars, which was a true flop for Disney.

It's probably best categorized as a mild success. Disappointing compared to expectations, but made money for the company.
 
Last edited:
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
Did they contract out the pedestal work to someone else? Why would they hang the ship so quickly and then the cladding be on an entirely different schedule?
 
TikibirdLand

TikibirdLand

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
I was including the additional marketing budget but forgot about the theater take (which I think is generally around 40%, although I also think Disney typically keeps more than other studios). I should have just used the general 2.5x of production budget rule of thumb, which would give it roughly $25 million in profit. That rule of thumb is generally within 10-15% of the actual profit (or loss).

Mary Poppins Returns probably made $30+ million for Disney overall between the theatrical profit and the post-theatrical window. I agree they were almost certainly hoping for more, but it's not comparable to something like John Carter of Mars, which was a true flop for Disney.

It's probably best categorized as a mild success. Disappointing compared to expectations, but made money for the company.
Click to expand...
yeah, in my mind, it was a mild success. It was entertaining and it fit my most important category: Some Mary Poppins is better than no Mary Poppins at all. Several songs were really memorable. Emily Blunt and Lin Manuel were cast well and I really enjoyed their performance. it's on my watch list for rainy days along with The Muppet Movie (the latest one) and The Greatest Showman.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom