News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[celluloid]

Small note from a former WDI'er:

I doubt he taught anyone much with that, but at the end of the idea, the impact and point is still valid regardless of the reason they are not as common I would rather have a great animatronic scene with one or two AAs and a lot less projection than all projection and no AAs.

Even cheaper than both(at times) and often more convincing/age better though are some practical sets.

 

[Jrb1979]

I doubt he taught anyone much with that, but at the end of the idea, the impact and point is still valid regardless of the reason they are not as common I would rather have a great animatronic scene with one or two AAs and a lot less projection than all projection and no AAs.

Even cheaper than both(at times) and often more convincing/age better though are some practical sets.

While I agree with you to a point. Where I differ is putting AA's on a coaster. Unless its part of the pre-show, the ride should be moving to quick for anyone to appreciate it. IMO if have to slow done a coaster for show scenes you might as well have made it a dark ride.

I personally think coasters don't work well for telling a story. They should be about speed and thrills.

 

[Anteater]

You have to walk past the other simulators. Did Star Tours cost nearly half a billion dollars?

Well, I'm sure the travel posters were pretty pricey!

 

[Casper Gutman]

There are so many variables in play with Disney merchandise that I think it's hard to draw any real conclusion from that.

Attendance is higher, which should result in more sales anyways, and since they've dramatically cut down on the total merchandise available with the elimination of specialty themed stores, it's generally easier for people to just go buy everything they want at World of Disney instead of wasting time looking in the parks. It's mostly the same items available for sale anyways.

I do think the overhaul probably made it easier to find items at World of Disney, but it's also a massive space -- that's less of a concern in smaller stores.

I just have no idea how Disney's store design philosophy moves merchandise. I look into Creations and I have no interest in entering - in fact, I am actively motivated to turn in the other direction. I want into the new World of Disney ONCE and it was awful - I'll actively avoid it in the future. Meanwhile, at Universal, I walk through the Universal Legacy Store every time I pass it, enjoy the stores in the HP area, and will wander into Williams of Hollywood multiple times in a single day. And I buy things in those stores, things I didn't intend to buy. At WDW, I think, "I want to buy a cheap souvenir of Rat opening, where can I get in and out the quickest because every store is the same and sells the same junk." Guess I'm weird.

 

[Incomudro]

I doubt he taught anyone much with that, but at the end of the idea, the impact and point is still valid regardless of the reason they are not as common I would rather have a great animatronic scene with one or two AAs and a lot less projection than all projection and no AAs.

Even cheaper than both(at times) and often more convincing/age better though are some practical sets.

It's not nearly that simple for me.
I'm a huge fan of AA's, I went to WDW as a third grader the year it opened.
The AA's were and are some of the most Disney of Disney things to me - like the Monorail.
But using new technology is also a Disney things, some attractions - benefit more from the non physical, or yes - sometimes work with both.
CR, much like Flights of Passage can be delivered far better with screens than any other way.
Would I have liked an AA or two in the pre-show, or exit?
Absolutely, and months ago I swore there would at least be a Rocket like there is in Mission Breakout.
But, their omission on this ride doesn't hurt it - and it makes more sense that they are not there with you story wise.

 

[James Alucobond]

I just have no idea how Disney's store design philosophy moves merchandise. I look into Creations and I have no interest in entering - in fact, I am actively motivated to turn in the other direction. I want into the new World of Disney ONCE and it was awful - I'll actively avoid it in the future. Meanwhile, at Universal, I walk through the Universal Legacy Store every time I pass it, enjoy the stores in the HP area, and will wander into Williams of Hollywood multiple times in a single day. And I buy things in those stores, things I didn't intend to buy. At WDW, I think, "I want to buy a cheap souvenir of Rat opening, where can I get in and out the quickest because every store is the same and sells the same junk." Guess I'm weird.

I'm convinced Most People™ just want a frumpy spirit jersey and mouse ears.

 

[Casper Gutman]

It's not nearly that simple for me.
I'm a huge fan of AA's, I went to WDW as a third grader the year it opened.
The AA's were and are some of the most Disney of Disney things to me - like the Monorail.
But using new technology is also a Disney things, some attractions - benefit more from the non physical, or yes - sometimes work with both.
CR, much like Flights of Passage can be delivered far better with screens than any other way.
Would I have liked an AA or two in the pre-show, or exit?
Absolutely, and months ago I swore there would at least be a Rocket like there is in Mission Breakout.
But, there omission on this ride doesn't hurt it - and it makes more sense that they are not there with you story wise.

The preshow is an amazingly lackluster collection of movie screens confining the stars of the attraction to television monitors and the story is hopelessly convoluted, contorted into a pretzel in large part to justify the GotG (again, stars of the attraction) being "somewhere else" so they could cut the scene in the concept art they have been showing off for several years.

And you're correct - during the actual roller coaster portion, the visuals aren't particularly important. The ride succeeds on physical sensation and the auditory pleasure of four decade old pop songs. That's a good argument not to build the same coaster-in-the-dark over... and over... and over, since WDW built its reputation on elaborate visuals, NOT physical thrills.

And what, here, is "new technology"? The projection effects are actually fairly basic. I'm genuinely surprised there aren't any really interesting visual effects, projection or otherwise. I mean... we all expected SOMETHING to happen with the giant ball, right? Instead, its just... a moon.

Let me ask the experts - what's innovative here? I mean, the one "Wow Moment" people keep pointing to was done much better at a Hilton hotel 25 years ago.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

The preshow is an amazingly lackluster collection of movie screens confining the stars of the attraction to television monitors and the story is hopelessly convoluted, contorted into a pretzel in large part to justify the GotG (again, stars of the attraction) being "somewhere else" so they could cut the scene in the concept art they have been showing off for several years.

And you're correct - during the actual roller coaster portion, the visuals aren't particularly important. The ride succeeds on physical sensation and the auditory pleasure of four decade old pop songs. That's a good argument not to build the same coaster-in-the-dark over... and over... and over, since WDW built its reputation on elaborate visuals, NOT physical thrills.

And what, here, is "new technology"? The projection effects are actually fairly basic. I'm genuinely surprised there aren't any really interesting visual effects, projection or otherwise. I mean... we all expected SOMETHING to happen with the giant ball, right? Instead, its just... a moon.

Let me ask the experts - what's innovative here?

The roller coaster system is new and innovative, but the attraction they've built around it is a lackluster collection of movie screens with very little to see. I'd love to see them use this ride system to actually tell a cohesive story.

And they will reuse the entire track layout for Tokyo's new Space Mountain, I'll bet (current odds 10 to 1). Though OLC might insist on something new (probably more likely, 7 to 1).

 

[Casper Gutman]

The roller coaster system is new and innovative, but the attraction they've built around it is a lackluster collection of movie screens with very little to see. I'd love to see them use this ride system to actually tell a cohesive story.

And they will reuse the entire track layout for Tokyo's new Space Mountain, I'll bet (current odds 10 to 1). Though OLC might insist on something new (probably more likely, 7 to 1).

I could be wrong, but wasn't the coaster itself developed and built by Vekoma and purchased by Disney?

 

[UNCgolf]

And what, here, is "new technology"? The projection effects are actually fairly basic. I'm genuinely surprised there aren't any really interesting visual effects, projection or otherwise. I mean... we all expected SOMETHING to happen with the giant ball, right? Instead, its just... a moon.

I was pretty surprised by the moon. I actually think the ride would be better without it -- it just sits there with nothing happening and it completely throws off the scale, because the way you rotate around it doesn't make sense unless it was actually supposed to be a very small asteroid and not a moon.

I'm not sure what they were trying to do there but it doesn't work. It's a place where I wonder if the original plans called for something else and they were cut into what we ended up with, because at best it's superfluous as it exists now.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

I could be wrong, but wasn't the coaster itself developed and built by Vekoma and purchased by Disney?

Yes, probably. How many of their more recent AAs have been crafted by Garner Holt? What exactly does Disney do in-house these days?

 

[wdwmagic]

I was pretty surprised by the moon. I actually think the ride would be better without it -- it just sits there with nothing happening and it completely throws off the scale, because the way you rotate around it doesn't make sense unless it was actually supposed to be a very small asteroid and not a moon.

I'm not sure what they were trying to do there but it doesn't work.

I think it was an effort to have at least some type of physical set piece in there.

 

[UNCgolf]

I think it was an effort to have at least some type of physical set piece in there.

I edited after you quoted -- I'd absolutely believe they originally had bigger plans for that that didn't come to fruition, but it was too late to axe it completely without leaving an empty gap in the ride.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I was pretty surprised by the moon. I actually think the ride would be better without it -- it just sits there with nothing happening and it completely throws off the scale, because the way you rotate around it doesn't make sense unless it was actually supposed to be a very small asteroid and not a moon.

I'm not sure what they were trying to do there but it doesn't work. It's a place where I wonder if the original plans called for something else and they were cut into what we ended up with, because at best it's superfluous as it exists now.

I thought the ball was going to feature a cool projection effect showing the planet forming after the big bang, but again, the big bang and time travel elements aren't really exploited in the ride at all.

A 3D Milano would be nice there, and would help alleviate the fact that the GotG aren't really in their own attraction very much.

 

[UNCgolf]

A 3D Milano would be nice there, and would help alleviate the fact that the GotG aren't really in their own attraction very much.

Any kind of spaceship there would make a lot more sense in the context of the ride. It seems like we have either become massive Celestial size beings ourselves or it's just a little asteroid.

EDIT: To head off any complaints -- this is not suggesting that the whole ride is terrible. It looks fun. But if we aren't going to discuss (critique) it, what's the point of having a thread? Everyone just says "it's amazing!" and the thread is over?

 

[Anteater]

Yes, probably. How many of their more recent AAs have been crafted by Garner Holt? What exactly does Disney do in-house these days?

Gotta give them some credit. They probably provided drawings to GH on what they wanted it to look like. I mean, who else could have come up with those feet on the Navi River Shaman? They're Huuuge...

 

[Incomudro]

The preshow is an amazingly lackluster collection of movie screens confining the stars of the attraction to television monitors and the story is hopelessly convoluted, contorted into a pretzel in large part to justify the GotG (again, stars of the attraction) being "somewhere else" so they could cut the scene in the concept art they have been showing off for several years.

And you're correct - during the actual roller coaster portion, the visuals aren't particularly important. The ride succeeds on physical sensation and the auditory pleasure of four decade old pop songs. That's a good argument not to build the same coaster-in-the-dark over... and over... and over, since WDW built its reputation on elaborate visuals, NOT physical thrills.

And what, here, is "new technology"? The projection effects are actually fairly basic. I'm genuinely surprised there aren't any really interesting visual effects, projection or otherwise. I mean... we all expected SOMETHING to happen with the giant ball, right? Instead, its just... a moon.

Let me ask the experts - what's innovative here? I mean, the one "Wow Moment" people keep pointing to was done much better at a Hilton hotel 25 years ago.

The pre-show doesn't really matter though.
Would it be better if it was better? Sure, but much like ToT it has little to do with the enjoyment of the ride.
This is not the same coaster over and over again in the dark.
But, keep repeating that to yourself - at least you believe it.
The tech is in the size, color, and vivid clarity of the screens and effects, combined with an omnimover coaster.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Any kind of spaceship there would make a lot more sense in the context of the ride. It seems like we have either become massive Celestial size beings ourselves or it's just a little asteroid.

It seems like Disney sort of forgot how perspective works - I think we're supposed to think its far away. Somehow.

 

[UNCgolf]

It seems like Disney sort of forgot how perspective works - I think we're supposed to think its far away. Somehow.

I absolutely think that was the intent, but it definitely doesn't work as designed. That's why I wonder if the original plans had something else in that space.

 

[Casper Gutman]

The pre-show doesn't really matter though.
Would it be better if it was better? Sure, but much like ToT it has little to do with the enjoyment of the ride.
This is not the same coaster over and over again in the dark.
But, keep repeating that to yourself - at least you believe it.
The tech is in the size, color, and vivid clarity of the screens and effects, combined with an omnimover coaster.

Are the size, color, and vivid clarity particularly impressive when compared to something like Bourne, which really does blur the borders between screen and reality?

The pre-show better matter, its quite long and convoluted. And its one of a relatively few things distinguishing this from Space Mountain.

And I love the argument that this isn't similar to several other coasters at WDW - that point hasn't been controversial for years, but now, even as otherwise glowing reviews mention over and over that it is similar to other coasters-in-the-dark, its labeled as a crazy fringe idea. Another side effect of the new ride smell.