EPCOT Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[MrPromey]

Kilimanjaro Safari is similarly environmental . . . but no one calls it "eye candy with no real reason".

The point of both is that you've (purportedly) traveled to a foreign destination and are going on an excursion to take in the wildlife. That Kilimanjaro is larger and uses actual plants and animals - due, of course, to Pandora's flora and fauna being wholly imaginary - is somewhat irrelevant. The core concept is the same, but people only beat up on one of them for the lack of "story".

I think that's likely because Kilimanjaro is a much more satisfying experience than Na'vi River Journey; the notion of encountering those animals in real life in their "natural habitat" is far more engaging than seeing projected animals on Na'vi River Journey . . . but that doesn't suddenly neccessitate a plot from that ride.

I think if anything they should have been more concerned with the fact that the imaginary animals would have to impress despite being in the same park with so many of earth's most gorgeous and fascinating creatures readily accessible - another incentive to step them up to Animatronics rather than projection. Especially because most people have no real recognition of the Pandora animals. You won't have people saying "look, there's a VIPERWOLF!" the way they'd say "Look, there's a TIGER!", so you'd better make a stand-out "first impression" if you want a comparable thrill. The Shaman does it easily, so we know it's possible, though we also know she is particularly advanced.

This all goes back to the notion of Themed Entertainment as an Empirical Artform - Imagine making clever use of the broom closet under your stairs, and then having someone ask "why'd you build such a tiny room?" Well, you didn't - the room was incidental, so you decided to try to make the most of it. That's what Na'vi River Journey is. It was built essentially out of the opportunity to fill the negative space under the Flight of Passage Queue rather than as an intended, ground-up, standalone attraction. The problem is, if you don't know that's why they built it then it comes off as awkwardly cramped and poorly fleshed out, rather than a somewhat amazing use of what could have otherwise been wasted space. But you can't stand there at the end of the ride and explain to guests how smart it was to use that space that way, and how efficient it was; at the end of the day the ride has to stand on its own, and Na'vi struggles in that regard.

At this point I'm sure I've gone way too far off-topic, so I'll say that I hope Cosmic Rewind avoids these types of problems and hope that brings us back a little.

Just imagine if you were charging people $150 for entrance into your house; you might even be able to afford to move some of that broom closet experience outside of the closet to make it larger and more complete while still utilizing that otherwise wasted space as part of it!

Too bad Disney apparently lacks both the land and the money to do something like that and instead, was forced to fit an entire attraction in the negative space of another attraction, only.

Not knocking what you said or your point - just pointing out that the limitations for this attraction were entirely arbitrary and by design. It isn't like they were having to fit something into an existing space like the puzzle over the years of what to put where Flight to the Moon was originally built.

They had freedom to do pretty much whatever they wanted with this so that it is a short and limited experience with a single animatronic - well, they designed and built it to be that limited from the ground up.

 

[UNCgolf]

They had freedom to do pretty much whatever they wanted with this so that it is a short and limited experience with a single animatronic - well, they designed and built it to be that limited from the ground up.

What's worse is that for all those self-imposed restrictions, it's still one of the best rides built at WDW this century.

 

[Bocabear]

What's worse is that for all those self-imposed restrictions, it's still one of the best rides built at WDW this century.

It is Pandora's Small World ride....without a catchy tune. lol

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Just imagine if you were charging people $150 for entrance into your house; you might even be able to afford to move some of that broom closet experience outside of the closet to make it larger and more complete while still utilizing that otherwise wasted space as part of it!

To bad Disney apparently lacks both the land and the money to do something like that and instead, was forced to fit an entire attraction in the negative space of another attraction, only.

Not knocking what you said or your point - just pointing out that the limitations for this attraction were entirely arbitrary and by design. It isn't like they were having to fit something into an existing space like the puzzle over the years of what to put where Flight to the Moon was originally built.

They had freedom to do pretty much whatever they wanted with this so that it is a short and limited experience with a single animatronic - well, they designed and built it to be that limited from the ground up.

That was kind of my point - they looked and said "hey, there's this unused space here, can we do something cool with it?" and thought that would be enough, but it isn't. Nobody who doesn't already know this walks off Na'vi River Journey and says "all things considered, this is definitely better than the large empty stockroom this could have been". They look and say "considering how much time and money I sunk to be able to ride this thing, did it deliver an awesome experience"? And if the answer is no, then no amount of explanation will suffice to change their mind.

That's the blessing and the curse of this medium - you've got to grab people by the throat with how good the experience is on its own merits. When you get it right people will build their lives around coming to see what you made - but when it tanks it tends to tank hard, and you don't get an explanation from the people behind the scenes to say "actually, that was a good ride if you look at how it worked out on paper". The constraints don't matter, the spreadsheets don't matter, the dollars saved don't matter - either it delivers for the guest or it doesn't, and they are the ones who decide if it's a success or not.

That's part of the great shame of MyMagic+ and Genie+ . . . remember how people called it a shell game? They were looking for ways to spread people out, discouraging you somewhat from already-popular attractions to help move you to attractions they weren't necessarily actually interested in riding because the line was shorter or you had a free Fastpass. That's a cheaper way to optimize the performance of the parks and their attractions than to simply spending the money make all your attractions world-class experiences that people actually want to devote time to.

They want to add more factors into the equation than the empirical, guest-dependent decision of "that ride seems good and I'd like to ride it".

 

[James Alucobond]

It is Pandora's Small World ride....without a catchy tune. lol

There are fourteen moons
And one gas giant.
We just wish the blues
Were more compliant.
Can't they just give us some
More unobtanium?
It's a small Pandora after all!

 

[MrPromey]

What's worse is that for all those self-imposed restrictions, it's still one of the best rides built at WDW this century.

not like there's a ton on nominees for that award, though. :/

 

[No Name]

What's worse is that for all those self-imposed restrictions, it's still one of the best rides built at WDW this century.

That’s a fiery hot take!

 

[UNCgolf]

That’s a fiery hot take!

Is it? To me it's a better (in terms of execution, place setting, attention to detail, etc.) ride than Little Mermaid, Seven Dwarfs, Alien Swirling Saucers, Smugglers Run, Slinky Dog, Toy Story Mania, Finding Nemo, Magic Carpets of Aladdin, Imagination, Frozen Ever After, Mission: Space, Ratatouille, Test Track 2.0, Triceratops Spin, Primeval Whirl, and Soarin'.

I'm not going to say it's better than Flight of Passage, even though I think I personally enjoy it more if all things were equal (i.e. if they were both always a walk-on I'd probably ride NRJ 6 or 7 times out of 10). It's not better than fully functioning Expedition Everest, although I might prefer it to the current diminished version (not just the Yeti, which I never saw operational anyways, but all of the other missing effects). I haven't been on Rise or MMRR, but I'm okay with calling them better.

I think that's every ride that's opened at WDW this century, although I could be forgetting one or two.

Obviously it's all subjective and there are several rides on my list that many people will prefer to NRJ, but I don't think anyone would have it in their bottom 5 and a significant number wouldn't have it in their bottom 10. That's not the same as best, of course, but I was only talking about my personal opinion with that modifier anyways.

 

[UNCgolf]

They look and say "considering how much time and money I sunk to be able to ride this thing, did it deliver an awesome experience"? And if the answer is no, then no amount of explanation will suffice to change their mind.

I've always thought this was the biggest issue most people have with NRJ. It's not a 60+ minute wait kind of ride, so of course people are let down when they wait that long to ride it. If it was at the Magic Kingdom, where it would probably have waits more in line with something like Winnie the Pooh, I think people would appreciate it far more for what it is.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I've always thought this was the biggest issue most people have with NRJ. It's not a 60+ minute wait kind of ride, so of course people are let down when they wait that long to ride it. If it was at the Magic Kingdom, where it would probably have waits more in line with something like Winnie the Pooh, I think people would appreciate it far more for what it is.

It's funny to me that part of the reason the New Fantasyland project came about was because of the problem where "The smallest guests were waiting in the longest lines for the shortest rides" . . . so they built Seven Dwarfs Mine Train, which solves approximately none of those problems.

Similar could be said for Na'vi River Journey - most of the attractions in Animal Kingdom throw you around to some extent, and there are few tame enough for the whole family to enjoy together . . . which means the line for the newest one that everyone can ride will always have a ridiculous wait that never seems worth it, because the demographic for Na'vi River Journey is simply too large and has too few alternatives within that park.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Height requirement is 42” apparently.

Where do you see this?

 

[UNCgolf]

It's funny to me that part of the reason the New Fantasyland project came about was because of the problem where "The smallest guests were waiting in the longest lines for the shortest rides" . . . so they built Seven Dwarfs Mine Train, which solves approximately none of those problems.

Little Mermaid solves them! Although that's because it's not very good so people don't really care about riding it, which was certainly not the intention.

 

[No Name]

Is it?

Yes

To me it's a better (in terms of execution, place setting, attention to detail, etc.) ride than Little Mermaid, Seven Dwarfs, Alien Swirling Saucers, Smugglers Run, Slinky Dog, Toy Story Mania, Finding Nemo, Magic Carpets of Aladdin, Imagination, Frozen Ever After, Mission: Space, Ratatouille, Test Track 2.0, Triceratops Spin, Primeval Whirl, and Soarin'.

I'm not going to say it's better than Flight of Passage, even though I think I personally enjoy it more if all things were equal (i.e. if they were both always a walk-on I'd probably ride NRJ 6 or 7 times out of 10). It's not better than fully functioning Expedition Everest, although I might prefer it to the current diminished version (not just the Yeti, which I never saw operational anyways, but all of the other missing effects). I haven't been on Rise or MMRR, but I'm okay with calling them better.

I think that's every ride that's opened at WDW this century, although I could be forgetting one or two.

Obviously it's all subjective and there are several rides on my list that many people will prefer to NRJ, but I don't think anyone would have it in their bottom 5 and a significant number wouldn't have it in their bottom 10. That's not the same as best, of course, but I was only talking about my personal opinion with that modifier anyways.

Yeah of course there’s nothing wrong with that opinion, I just think most would indeed have it in their bottom 10, nor did I take “one of the best” to include the entire top half.

For one thing, the website TouringPlans takes detailed surveys similar to Disney’s GSATs, and NRJ is pretty much lower than everything on that list but Imagination, Nemo, Mermaid, the green Mission:Space, and the flat rides (except among little kids). So that’s like 13.5th place. TouringPlans probably isn’t the most representative sample (though I don’t know any specific bias) but really there’s not much objective stuff to go off of. I’d just bet good money that if you asked 100 random guests, NRJ wouldn’t sit toward the top for most.

 

[UNCgolf]

Yes

Yeah of course there’s nothing wrong with that opinion, I just think most would indeed have it in their bottom 10, nor did I take “one of the best” to include the entire top half.

For one thing, the website TouringPlans takes detailed surveys similar to Disney’s GSATs, and NRJ is pretty much lower than everything on that list but Imagination, Nemo, Mermaid, the green Mission:Space, and the flat rides (except among little kids). So that’s like 13.5th place. TouringPlans probably isn’t the most representative sample (though I don’t know any specific bias) but really there’s not much objective stuff to go off of. I’d just bet good money that if you asked 100 random guests, NRJ wouldn’t sit toward the top for most.

As I said above, though, the wait time is a major factor in GSAT scores. I bet the GSAT scores for NRJ would be significantly higher if people were only waiting 20 minutes to ride it instead of an hour or longer. That's true for every ride to an extent, but NRJ is a C ticket with D or sometimes E ticket wait times. That makes it underwhelming almost by default for average guests.

Physical thrill also has a major effect on GSATs. Roller coasters almost always have high guest satisfaction ratings, but a ride like Slinky Dog Dash (or Primeval Whirl before it closed) is close to being an off the shelf coaster that you can ride all over the country. Disney could probably drop in 5 off the shelf coasters around the parks and they'd all get good GSAT scores, but that wouldn't mean they were great attractions. Even Kali River Rapids has pretty good scores on Touring Plans.

I don't think it makes any sense to argue they're better attractions in terms of overall design than a ride like NRJ. Of course ride design is subjective too, but that was the basis of my argument -- and I didn't expect many people to agree regardless.

 

[BrianLo]

I just want to point out to @yensidtlaw1969 and @UNCgolf that you do not stop in Shanghai Pirates in front of screens. Apart from perhaps the reverse section briefly. There is constant motion with the Imax portions.

As someone who takes major issues with both Gringott's and Ratatouille over these perceived issues, I will say videos again do not do it justice. A common refrain. The integration looks way worse in still video frames than it really is.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

I just want to point out to @yensidtlaw1969 and @UNCgolf that you do not stop in Shanghai Pirates in front of screens. Apart from perhaps the reverse section briefly. There is constant motion with the Imax portions.

As someone who takes major issues with both Gringott's and Ratatouille over these perceived issues, I will say videos again do not do it justice. A common refrain. The integration looks way worse in still video frames than it really is.

Not to mention the score is amazing.

 

[Bocabear]

There is so much going on all around you, you never really focus on the screen integration...You are constantly moving, and turning...It is disorienting at times...in a good way. Really amazing.

 

[UNCgolf]

I just want to point out to @yensidtlaw1969 and @UNCgolf that you do not stop in Shanghai Pirates in front of screens. Apart from perhaps the reverse section briefly. There is constant motion with the Imax portions.

As someone who takes major issues with both Gringott's and Ratatouille over these perceived issues, I will say videos again do not do it justice. A common refrain. The integration looks way worse in still video frames than it really is.

I know you don't stop -- it's the fact that in places screens and action on them are a replacement for physical sets/AAs. That's the ride's biggest failing. The fact that you're moving while looking at the screens doesn't really make a difference to the way I perceive them and how they break my immersion.

Again, though, it looks like a tremendous ride. It's not like we're arguing it's a poorly made, bad ride. Screens used in the way they're used in places on Shanghai Pirates just fundamentally don't work for some people, so those areas are flawed for us.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I just want to point out to @yensidtlaw1969 and @UNCgolf that you do not stop in Shanghai Pirates in front of screens. Apart from perhaps the reverse section briefly. There is constant motion with the Imax portions.

As someone who takes major issues with both Gringott's and Ratatouille over these perceived issues, I will say videos again do not do it justice. A common refrain. The integration looks way worse in still video frames than it really is.

I'm aware, hence my use of quotes around "parked" (in front of the screen). The motion of the boat relative to the action onscreen is minimal. The sideways crawl hardly provides sufficient simulator effect relative to the dramatic forward, downward, and upward motions the projections suggest you're doing - In effect, you are essentially stopped in front of the screens, despite not being literally stopped.

I do find it funny how I can sing the praises of so many elements of this attraction, but my dislike of this one point becomes so contentious. Unfortunately, I don't really expect to be swayed - Projection domes without a sufficient motion base (or 3D glasses, which I don't love but do at least increase the impact of video) are already too much of a shortcut to storytelling for my tastes, and then on top of that leaving edge of the screen nearest guests so plainly unmasked . . . It's one thing when it's the top edge 40 feet above the riders' heads, but right there? I don't accept it - there are simple solutions to this that could have been utilized and weren't. They cost money, sure, but they have it. It shouldn't be expected that we wave our attention away, it should not be visible.

If you want to call your attraction seamless then you must either hide the seams or feature them meaningfully. The nearest they come to featuring it is this moment where the waterline meets that of the surface of the ocean in the video, but it's a little undone by 2 things - 1) That we "rise" from the depths of the ocean to the surface right before this moment, taking us from a bit where we're meant to ignore the edge of the screen as we have so far in the ride, then immediately to one where it suddenly "counts", which is an odd choice that would have been improved by some physical separation of these moments, and 2) By not taking the opportunity to have jets of actual water shoot out along the edge of the screen in conjunction with the Flying Dutchman breaching the surface - intsead the rushing water onscreen immediately just stops and the water we ride through is awkwardly still, even though we're suddenly meant feel we're on the same plane as all the ships on the screen:

Let me be clear, none of this "tanks" the attraction - it's still very good and has lots of exceptional features. But these sorts of moments are just such a turn-off for me, likely because the attraction has so many strengths. I simply expect better integration of the screens if they're going to be such a meaningful part of the experience - and if they can't be integrated then I wish they'd have found ways to navigate with less of them. I think they are the weakest points of a great attraction and that editing them out or raising their grade would have made the attraction virtually unimpeachable. Though I am still disappointed by how few Animatronics there are, given how Pirates historically is known for having so many.

But now we're wildly off topic.

 

[UNCgolf]

By the way, as for NRJ -- I was thinking about it more and I think this is the easiest way to sum up my feelings. It's not even really about the quality of NRJ itself but about the overall design ethos behind it.

If Disney was going to give someone $300m to build a new E ticket dark ride in the vein of things like Spaceship Earth, Splash Mountain, POTC, and Haunted Mansion, and you had to pick someone to design it based on one ride of NRJ, Frozen Ever After, Slinky Dog Dash, Seven Dwarfs Mine Train, Ratatouille, and Toy Story Mania, I think the NRJ designer is the easy pick based on the overall attention to detail in that attraction. I'd have more faith they would build something approaching the quality of the aforementioned attractions than any of the other designers (for the sake of argument here this is a blind pick where you know nothing else about the people beyond those specific attractions -- also if you threw in the Shanghai Pirates designer they'd be my #2 choice over the others!). That's my favorite type of ride, so of course I'm going to prefer/enjoy something that leans closer to them in overall execution.

And that's my last comment regarding NRJ in this thread.