News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[EricsBiscuit]

The ride system itself seems excellent. If they would dump the screens and use all AAs/physical sets I'd be completely on board.

Or use the screens as background supplements like in Na'vi River Journey (and Rise too, I think... still haven't been on it). It's not that I think Shanghai's Pirates is bad -- a lot of it looks fantastic. There's just a few too many scenes that rely on watching something happen in a video as you float by.

It was my fav attraction when I went to SDL in 2017. The queue line and land were magnificently themed. The ride itself has a tremendous amount of detail that is not on the screens. It makes up for the scenes with screens with huge physical sets. It’s an amazing ride.

Having gone to all the parks, I think Shanghai Pirates is the best ride in the world, and RotR is the best attraction in the world. Everything else is distantly below that.

I would say it’s between those two and JttCotE at TDS.

 

[Movielover]

but it strikes me as strange that you are so enthusiastic about River Journey, which supplements sets with screens

I have to disagree with you there. There is still a physical set there to enjoy, and a pretty good one at that, although short. Yes there are screens for the wildlife but they are integrated well in the physical set.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Everyone can have there own opinion of course, but it strikes me as strange that you are so enthusiastic about River Journey, which supplements sets with screens, and relatively negative about Pirates, which does the same on a MUCH grander, more complete scale. You love the way River creates a sense of atmosphere, but surely Pirates does that to an even greater extent?

Screens work best when they are one tool in the toolbox and when they are used to create effects that could not be created in any other way. I think Pirates does this, but I think most of the screens in River could have been replaced with AAs and the overall effect would be improved.

Because Pirates has at least one scene where the screen is the scene -- NRJ doesn't. I'm specifically thinking of the scene where you watch Jack Sparrow run around; I can't remember if there are others but I think there's at least one. Of course it's followed up with physical effects etc. that match what you saw happen on the screen, which is very nice and certainly elevates it over some competitors, but that's the kind of thing that kills the ride's momentum and seriously detracts from the atmosphere for me.

It's obviously not the majority of the ride, and I've never suggested that Shanghai Pirates is a bad ride. I think it looks very good (and I'm also not arguing that NRJ is a better overall ride). But, only speaking for myself, it would be even better if those "watch something happen on a screen" segments were replaced to keep the ride's momentum going.

I tend to agree with UNCgold here - Na'vi River Journey isn't perfect, of course, but it distinctly lacks moments like these from Shanghai Pirates where you're "parked" in front of a poorly-masked screen and essentially asked to pretend something exciting is happening:

Honorable mention goes to this moment where you're meant to feel like you're, like, descening backwards down an underwater waterfall (??), but you're actually just moving slowly backward in front of a confusing and strangely-integrated projection:

These examples are much like the Ratatouille problem, where the screens meet the floor plainly in the guest's line of sight, and there's no motion-base in the vehicle to really suggest you're part of the action instead of just seeing it. Of course, Pirates has many more fully-realized dimensional show sets, special effects, and a few nice Animatronics that all help to make up for the Imax Screens, which is much less the case with Ratatouille.

The idea behind these projection dome moments tends to be that "there's no way you could do THAT practically", but if using projections doesn't also let you do that thing convincingly then there's a good chance you'd be better off trying to do something else. What's the point of seeing the Kraken swim overhead and off into the distance if it doesn't impact the audience as if it actually happened?

That, for me, is drawn clearly into focus on something like Na'vi River Journey, where the Hexapedes barely register as meaningful and a minute later the Na'vi Shaman offers an overwhelming wow factor. The hexapedes don't need to impress the way the Shaman does, but the gulf between how those two elements register with guests is huge and partly the result of the methods by which they're accomplished. Even a simpler Hexapede Animatronic would make a stronger impression. But at least in Na'vi River Journey the physical environment is overwhelmingly realized by physical means, and merely augmented by projections.

If you're trying to give guests the convinving experience of moving through a dynamic and exciting themed environment, projections work best as sprinkles on the cake rather than as a subsitute for the cake itself.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I tend to agree with UNCgold here - Na'vi River Journey isn't perfect, of course, but it distinctly lacks moments like these from Shanghai Pirates where you're "parked" in front of a poorly-masked screen and essentially asked to pretend something exciting is happening:

View attachment 627030

View attachment 627031

View attachment 627032

Honorable mention goes to this moment where you're meant to feel like you're, like, descening backwards down an underwater waterfall (??), but you're actually just moving slowly backward in front of a confusing and strangely-integrated projection:

View attachment 627033

These examples are much like the Ratatouille problem, where the screens meet the floor plainly in the guest's line of sight, and there's no motion-base in the vehicle to really suggest you're part of the action instead of just seeing it. Of course, Pirates has many more fully-realized dimensional show sets, special effects, and a few nice Animatronics that all help to make up for the Imax Screens, which is much less the case with Ratatouille.

The idea behind these projection dome moments tends to be that "there's no way you could do THAT practically", but if using projections doesn't also let you do that thing convincingly then there's a good chance you'd be better off trying to do something else. What's the point of seeing the Kraken swim overhead and off into the distance if it doesn't impact the audience as if it actually happened?

That, for me, is drawn clearly into focus on something like Na'vi River Journey, where the Hexapedes barely register as meaningful and a minute later the Na'vi Shaman offers an overwhelming wow factor. The hexapedes don't need to impress the way the Shaman does, but the gulf between how those two elements register with guests is huge and partly the result of the methods by which they're accomplished. Even a simpler Hexapede Animatronic would make a stronger impression. But at least in Na'vi River Journey the physical environment is overwhelmingly realized by physical means, and merely augmented by projections.

If you're trying to give guests the convinving experience of moving through a dynamic and exciting themed environment, projections work best as sprinkles on the cake rather than as a subsitute for the cake itself.

Just a quick reply - if we’re dismissing dark rides that have big, impressive, IMAX-scale segments augmenting physical sets and AAs, that’s two of the great lost EPCOT dark rides, Horizons and WoM, tossed out the window.

 

[UNCgolf]

Just a quick reply - if we’re dismissing dark rides that have big, impressive, IMAX-scale segments augmenting physical sets and AAs, that’s two of the great lost EPCOT dark rides, Horizons and WoM, tossed out the window.

I think those are a fundamentally different thing. I'd have to refresh my memory for the screen in World of Motion, but in Horizons it's a completely separate part of the ride. I think that would only be a good comparison if the future living part of Horizons had, e.g., the underwater living scene mostly replaced with a screen instead of the physical set and AAs while the other parts stayed as is.

Regardless, I don't think anyone is dismissing them outright. Shanghai Pirates appears to be a good ride, just one that has room for improvement. It's just that for some people, stopping and watching something on a screen takes them out of the atmosphere of that kind of ride. The EPCOT rides weren't generally intended to be a singular transportive experience; they were often made up of individually distinct parts so they're a bit different IMO.

Flight of Passage actually works better than Shanghai Pirates in that aspect, because it's screen based the entire time so it's not as jarring when physical sets stop and are replaced with a screen in places. I'm not opposed to screen based attractions (I like FoP, Soarin', and Star Tours) but they're generally less interesting than ones full of detailed sets etc.

 

[jaxonp]

It was my fav attraction when I went to SDL in 2017. The queue line and land were magnificently themed. The ride itself has a tremendous amount of detail that is not on the screens. It makes up for the scenes with screens with huge physical sets. It’s an amazing ride.

I would say it’s between those two and JttCotE at TDS.

I want to put JttCotE up there but it was starting to look a tad dated right before we went into lockdown in 2020. Still an amazing attraction that's unique and not Disney IP focused.

 

[jaxonp]

I don’t think RotR is even the best attraction in its own park - or even the second best! In fact, if given the chance to ride one SW ride over and over, I’d take Tours without thinking twice (of course, I realize that if you hate screens, that’s not an option).

RotR is a very fun, well-done ride, but… the queue is uninteresting; the preshows are neat once, but none of them are particularly fascinating, and the shuttle section is badly laid out so that many guests don’t see much of anything at all; the settings in the ride section are monotonous, empty, and sterile; the storm troopers who shoot at you are projections for no reason; the AT-AT room is cool but badly laid out, with nothing drawing attention to the Finn figures so they are very easily missed; the AAs are simply unexceptional human figures and thus wastes of AA tech; and many of the effects are wildly unreliable or permanently broken! Many of the coolest things about RotR are impressive when discussed outside the ride - divergent paths and two Finns in the AT-AT room, for instance - but don’t actually add a great deal to the actual experience of the ride.

All that said, I still think it’s a 4.5 star ride. The pod drop is genuinely exhilarating and immersive, the areas before and after the shuttle are very impressive, and going outside at the end is great. I just think that it’s newness, the ballyhoo surrounding it, the sheer amount of pre-shows piled on top of one another, the sorry state of MGM before it’s arrival… they all add up to give the attraction a somewhat inflated reputation.

I'm just curious what your best are at Studios? ToT & ??

 

[jaxonp]

I don't think you can judge most attractions from a YouTube video. The effects of rising up through the water on Pirates simply doesn't come through a 24" screen. That one moment on Pirates is more incredible than any part of Rise, imo.. save maybe the hanger bay.... err the first time you see it. If you're staring at where the water meets the screen than that's your problem for not focusing on the action and what's happening. I can look all day at the celling in Haunted mansion and Legacy Pirates and notice all sorts of things that I shouldn't be noticing.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Just a quick reply - if we’re dismissing dark rides that have big, impressive, IMAX-scale segments augmenting physical sets and AAs, that’s two of the great lost EPCOT dark rides, Horizons and WoM, tossed out the window.

I don't know why you're assuming we're dismissing rides when both UNCgolf and I have both clearly bent over backwards to explain that we feel there are many great qualities to Shanghai's Pirates - so that seems more like you reading what you want to read, and since we're both adults I'm not going to entertain that.

That said, the difference here is that the IMAX screens in Horizons and World of Motion were used in a much more presentational way, being that they were both much more presentational attractions. They weren't linear, "immersive" attractions where you were meant to feel like you were going on one continuous physical journey from start to finish the way that Shanghai's Pirates is.

You couldn't chart your trip through World of Motion on a theoretical map by drawing an unbroken line, but you could with Shanghai's Pirates. It's meant to transport you to a specific place and time and make you feel like "you are THERE" and riding through that space, and neither Horizons nor World of Motion shared that same goal. The jump cuts alone in both the Horizons domes and the WoM speed tunnel footage are enough to make clear this difference, though omnicient narration and the time-traveling components of both rides also speak to this.

Ultimately, the difference in fuction between the Horizons and World of Motion screens is enough to justify their use within those rides, as they were meant to be percieved as movie screens. The Speed Tunnel created the sensation of accerating past the projected images, but you weren't meant to believe it wasn't a projection the way you're meant to in Pirates. Horizons and WoM were both highly abstracted journeys that bounced across space and time, and used presentational attraction conventions throughout to convey this tone. They didn't share the same goals as Shanghai's Pirates, and the way those screens were used reflect that.

But then again, I'm also not advocating for any sort of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" with regards to attractions with projection domes, so the example is somewhat irrelevant anyway.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I’m old-school and prefer the likes of the Indiana Jones Adventure: Temple of the Forbidden Eye!

 

[jaxonp]

I’m old-school and prefer the likes of the Indiana Jones Adventure: Temple of the Forbidden Eye!

Still a classic. Can't wait to see what upgrades are coming...

 

[Bocabear]

One thing: If you have experienced the Pirates ride in Shanghai, the overall motion with the MASSIVE screens plus practical sets feels extremely well integrated... Video and camera capture what you might not notice while you are being engulfed in spectacle... So yeah, the edges of a screen feel more readable in a video than they actually do in person...The overall effect is stunning...Video does not do this justice...And I suspect the same for NRJ...NRJ just lacks a bit of a plot... it is merely environmental... eye candy with no real reason...

 

[jaxonp]

One thing: If you have experienced the Pirates ride in Shanghai, the overall motion with the MASSIVE screens plus practical sets feels extremely well integrated... Video and camera capture what you might not notice while you are being engulfed in spectacle... So yeah, the edges of a screen feel more readable in a video than they actually do in person...The overall effect is stunning...Video does not do this justice...And I suspect the same for NRJ...NRJ just lacks a bit of a plot... it is merely environmental... eye candy with no real reason...

Exactly. You’re not prepared for the scale of Pirates until you are on the ride vehicle. It is massive and overwhelming. Sad that we will likely never see this ride in English. My Mandarin begins and ends with Xie xie.

 

[jaxonp]

So about Guardians …

 

[MisterPenguin]

So about Guardians …

Wait, I have more unrelated grievances to air...

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

One thing: If you have experienced the Pirates ride in Shanghai, the overall motion with the MASSIVE screens plus practical sets feels extremely well integrated... Video and camera capture what you might not notice while you are being engulfed in spectacle... So yeah, the edges of a screen feel more readable in a video than they actually do in person...The overall effect is stunning...Video does not do this justice...And I suspect the same for NRJ...NRJ just lacks a bit of a plot... it is merely environmental... eye candy with no real reason...

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.

 

[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".