News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[yensidtlaw1969]

I apologize for misstating your argument, but your comparison of Pirates to Rat, despite the many caveats, struck me as (unfairly, I'm sure) somewhat dismissive. The reason I question the invocation of Rat is that it quite literally parks you in front of the screen and allows even the most unobservant guests the opportunity to see the seams between screen and reality. Pirates, like Spidey, overwhelms the rider with visual activity and the sheer scope of the screens. The images you have posted clearly show the seams (and it seems like a small water screen might have gone a long way), but the proof is in the pudding - when you are on the ride, are those seams intrusive? Because if I want to, I can find the seams on Spidey - or on Disneyland's Pirates. No ride is or can be fully seamless.

Is it really true that the screens on Shanghai's Pirates overwhelm with more visual activity than Ratatouille?

Like . . . they're both hyper-kinetic, and they're both overwhelmingly large . . . and they both plainly meet the "floor" just below the guest's eyeline. Visibly in both these gifs.

I think the way you stated your post makes clear that you recognize the difference here - You say that you can FIND the seams on Spidey and DL's Pirates, implying you know you'd have to actively look for them. Obviously no attraction is actually 100% seamless, but on Spidey and DL Pirates the seams need be sought out because they are otherwise generally well paged away from the viewer. That's not the case with the projection domes in Ratatouille and Shanghai Pirates, where they're plainly visible right in front of you whether you look for them or not.

Even Runaway Railway went to the trouble of rounding out the bottom of their projection domes and mapping it so that the seam in never plainly in the guest's line of sight - which is exactly what they should be doing:

I can't think of any good reason Ratatouille couldn't have done that. I can at least understand that it's more challenging for Pirates, since the showbuilding is flooded . . . but those scenes should have narrowed the waterway to a trough just large enough for the boats to pass through, and the screen extended down below and rounded under to meet the edge of the trough. That would have brought the bottom edge of the screen just below the front of the boat - yes, you would have still been able to see the trough by looking to either side, but at least it wouldn't be directly in the forward-facing sightline.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Is it really true that the screens on Shanghai's Pirates overwhelm with more visual activity than Ratatouille?
View attachment 627174

View attachment 627175

Like . . . they're both hyper-kinetic, and they're both overwhelmingly large . . . and they both plainly meet the "floor" just below the guest's eyeline. Visibly in both these gifs.

I think the way you stated your post makes clear that you recognize the difference here - You say that you can FIND the seams on Spidey and DL's Pirates, implying you know you'd have to look for them. Obviously no attraction is actually 100% seamless, but on Spidey and DL Pirates the seams need be sought out because they are otherwise generally well paged away from the viewer. That's not the case with the projection domes in Ratatouille and Shanghai Pirates, where they're plainly visible right in front of you.

Even Runaway Railway went to the trouble of rounding out the bottom of their projection domes and mapping it so that the seam in never plainly in the guest's line of sight - which is exactly what they should be doing:

View attachment 627176

I can't think of any good reason Ratatouille couldn't have done that. I can at least understand that it's more challenging for Pirates, since the showbuilding is flooded . . . but those scenes should have narrowed the waterway to a trough just large enough for the boats to pass through, and the screen extended down below and rounded under to meet the edge of the trough. That would have brought the bottom edge of the screen just below the front of the boat - yes, you would have still been able to see the trough by looking to either side, but at least it wouldn't be directly in the forward-facing sightline.

Your note on MMRR—I thought this as well for Rat. It doesn’t perfectly solve the issue but it’s simple and greatly improves immersion.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Your note on MMRR—I thought this as well for Rat. It doesn’t perfectly solve the issue but it’s simple and greatly improves immersion.

Right? The only legitimate reason for the black floor butting right up to the screen is laziness. They spent all that money on the attraction and then trip on the finish line with this stupid, easily avoidable problem.

 

[No Name]

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.

Well if roller coasters have high guest satisfaction perhaps that’s because guests like them, I get your point opinion-wise but I’ve seen this slippery slope once too many times where people become elitist and decide what is actually a great attraction isn’t what most guests think. Agreed on the wait time factoring in, but I’d consider that a fair part of the experience to judge.

 

[UNCgolf]

Well if roller coasters have high guest satisfaction perhaps that’s because guests like them, I get your point opinion-wise but I’ve seen this slippery slope once too many times where people become elitist and decide what is actually a great attraction isn’t what most guests think. Agreed on the wait time factoring in, but I’d consider that a fair part of the experience to judge.

I agree it's fair to judge in terms of actual guest satisfaction ratings, I just don't think it's relevant to the overall design of the ride.

And I wasn't suggesting people were wrong to like roller coasters -- just that they they're a different kind of design than a dark ride.

 

[Hawg G]

NRJ is very good at creating a mood, setting a stage, and that's it. That's not nothing... in fact it's a lot, given other Disney dark rides that fail miserably at doing that. But that, alone, doesn't make a ride. It's a well written "It was a dark and stormy night" opening paragraph or, to be more exact, the opening caverns of the WDW version of Pirates. It gives you a base on which to build.

.

Which is what Joe Rhode is good at, creating a mood, a setting, not a phenomenal ride. Which is why he isn’t an Imagineering God, imho.

 

[412]

Which is what Joe Rhode is good at, creating a mood, a setting, not a phenomenal ride. Which is why he isn’t an Imagineering God, imho.

Rohde doesn't have a 100% success rate, but he's definitely created some phenomenal rides that go beyond mere moods and settings: Flight of Passage, Kilimanjaro Safaris, Expedition Everest, Mission Breakout...

 

[UNCgolf]

Rohde doesn't have a 100% success rate, but he's definitely created some phenomenal rides that go beyond mere moods and settings: Flight of Passage, Kilimanjaro Safaris, Expedition Everest, Mission Breakout...

I also personally think the mood/setting is the most important part of building a great ride. It's the foundation for everything else.

That doesn't mean mood/setting alone is enough for a great ride (which is why NRJ is not a great ride), but without it you're basically out of luck.

 

[Hawg G]

Your note on MMRR—I thought this as well for Rat. It doesn’t perfectly solve the issue but it’s simple and greatly improves immersion.

MMRR can hide seams because they are soft in most rooms, with things projected on a painted wall.

Except for the final battle curved screen scenes, Spidey’s seams are flawless, as they are surrounded by walls printed to exactly match the original video.

To say Shanghai Pirates or any Other ride period, really, matches Spidey in that regard is crazy. SDL Pirates has a black ceiling and dark water as two seams pretty much throughout.

Spidey opened 23 years ago, and still is unmatched in many regards. Thats why it truly blew minds 23 years ago. I know it did mine.

 

[No Name]

MMRR can hide seams because they are soft in most rooms, with things projected on a painted wall.

MMRR is still pretty bad at it though, and the real design crime is that the scene where we leave the tracks draws riders’ attention to the floor because it’s the focal point of that moment, but in the very next scene the floor is just gray and warehouse-like and not meant to be payed attention to.

 

[rioriz]

Can we all agree that this iteration of Guardians needs to have Nebula in it to be qualified as Great?!?!?!

Nebula is by far the best addition to the team since Vol. 2 and she is a scene stealer.

Also telling that Rocket is front and center on the poster not Quill....

Wierd that Mantis isn't featured here while she is on the the DL version....different timelines?

 

[Hotamber]

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

Guardians is going to be an extension of Marvel Super Hero Island because everything is multiverse now or maybe it will be the opposite and certain characters cannot appear on the ride in Epcot because of Universal

 

[FigmentFan82]

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

Easy Frank

 

[TikibirdLand]

Easy Frank

Festivus for the rest of us!

 

[Casper Gutman]

MMRR is still pretty bad at it though, and the real design crime is that the scene where we leave the tracks draws riders’ attention to the floor because it’s the focal point of that moment, but in the very next scene the floor is just gray and warehouse-like and not meant to be payed attention to.

I absolutely love MMRR, but big flat featureless warehouse floors are the curse of trackless dark rides and a BIG part of why I think that type of ride is vastly overrated. It’s a manifestation of the even bigger problem with trackless systems, which is that the designers lose tight control over the viewers field of vision.

 

[Purduevian]

It’s a manifestation of the even bigger problem with trackless systems, which is that the designers lose tight control over the viewers field of vision.

That is one of the genius things about universals SCOOP vehicle on Spiderman. You really are limited to looking directly in front of you or above you. You never see the sides or the floors. (Same with HPFJ)

In fact, MIB alien attack originally wanted to use the SCOOP vehicles, but the limited view didn't work well for an open shooting gallery ride, so instead they went with the Cat in the Hat system. I wonder if Disney would be better off with their trackless vehicles putting some walls up around the vehicles limiting the views so we can't see the floors

 

[Casper Gutman]

That is one of the genius things about universals SCOOP vehicle on Spiderman. You really are limited to looking directly in front of you or above you. You never see the sides or the floors. (Same with HPFJ)

In fact, MIB alien attack originally wanted to use the SCOOP vehicles, but the limited view didn't work well for an open shooting gallery ride, so instead they went with the Cat in the Hat system. I wonder if Disney would be better off with their trackless vehicles putting some walls up around the vehicles limiting the views so we can't see the floors

This is 100% spot on. I really don't think there is a better ride system (besides, perhaps, the classic omni) then the SCOOP. Another key element is that the SCOOP does, as you say, restrict the field of vision... but it doesn't FEEL like it is restricting the field of vision. People complain about Transformers copying Spidey, and their is validity to that complaint, but I would happily take a park full of SCOOPs just as I loved the park full of omnis that was the original EPCOT.

I'd love to see an experiment with a trackless with a narrowed range of vision, although I suspect that would introduce new issues I'm not bright enough to forsee.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'd love to see an experiment with a trackless with a narrowed range of vision, although I suspect that would introduce new issues I'm not bright enough to forsee.

It removes the gimmick. The whole point is letting you see that you’re not on a track even though over the years the tires tend to wear a clearly visible path.

 

[TikibirdLand]

It removes the gimmick. The whole point is letting you see that you’re not on a track even though over the years the tires tend to wear a clearly visible path.

Frankly, I haven't seen a real reason for trackless on anywhere where it's been deployed. The only novel place was on MMRR during the "dance" scene. Seems so out-of-place that it was a demo for the technology. Otherwise, a track or wire-guided vehicle would have done the job nicely -- and cheaper and more reliably.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Frankly, I haven't seen a real reason for trackless on anywhere where it's been deployed. The only novel place was on MMRR during the "dance" scene. Seems so out-of-place that it was a demo for the technology. Otherwise, a track or wire-guided vehicle would have done the job nicely -- and cheaper and more reliably.

I like it on MMRR and (from what I've seen) Mystic Manor. It seems to emphasize the chaos inherent in both rides. However, it still comes with massive drawbacks even when I feel it is used well.