News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[UNCgolf]

Thank you! Yes, it really feels unfathomable. And the rumors that TRON has crossed north of the $400 million mark are equally perplexing. Both these E-Tickets lack a level of intricacy that normally befits attractions of such caliber. Which isn’t to say that intricacy is necessary for a high-level E-Ticket experience, but then what the heck is costing so much on these rides?

Wait, TRON? $400 million?

That ride shouldn't cost more than a quarter of that. There's barely anything to it -- it's a D ticket IMO and that's solely because it goes fast.

I don't think CR looks like the greatest ride in the world, but it's certainly vastly superior to TRON.

 

[donsullivan]

For real.

People seem to keep forgetting that Cosmic Rewind is the single most expensive attraction in Walt Disney World History. By about 100 million dollars. Does it look like it? Does it feel like it?

For the price of this one ride you could build half of Animal Kingdom.

Instead we get one ride that looks basically like Space Mountain, an attraction that isn't known for its eye-popping visuals? If you're gonna spend more money than ever before, shouldn't this ride look like nothing we've ever seen before?

If it cost as much as Rise of the Resistance and Expedition: Everest COMBINED, why is it so much less impressive?

I’d love to see the adjusted for inflation actual numbers that support this conclusion.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I’d love to see the adjusted for inflation actual numbers that support this conclusion.

Okay, you got me, a little less than half:

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I’d love to see the adjusted for inflation actual numbers that support this conclusion.

Expedition Everest cost $100 million in 2006. That's about $150 million today.

Is CR better than three Everests?

 

[The Empress Lilly]

This thing cost nearly half a billion dollars. It should have every expensive trick in the book. Beginning to end should be “Wow! Look at the effort they spent on that!”

Unrelated, the last time I felt this was at Shanghai Pirates. It's a riveting sensation in its own right, partly separate of and partly strongly reinforcing the ride experience itself.

At WDW, GE at times achieves this. Pandora too. The bits where both are at their best.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I'm curious about a couple points:

Supposedly the size of the screens in CR is a major innovation. How do they compare to a standard Imax screen? How do they compare to the giant screen in Horizons or the speed tunnel in WoM? Also, would it have been feasible to integrate screens that had the remarkable clarities of the ones in Bourne (which was kind of what I was expecting for the price)?

How does CR compare to Universal Japan's Space Fantasy? It's very difficult to get any idea of that ride from video.

 

[MisterPenguin]

People seem to keep forgetting that Cosmic Rewind is the single most expensive attraction in Walt Disney World History.

It's impossible to forget when we're reminded dozens of times in multiple threads on a daily basis.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I sort of get your point, but as a layperson with zero understanding of attraction costs, I find it a difficult thing to be outraged about except in the vaguest sense of wishing that money had gone elsewhere because I don’t particularly love coasters. I am sure many rides I love cost substantially less than others that I might not find particularly impressive. If you were to ask my extremely uneducated self where all that money went, I would simply assume that the ride system is especially expensive and that the inordinately long track further ate into budget. I’m probably terribly wrong, and perhaps it was mismanaged to a distressing degree, but again, no frame of reference whatsoever, nor do I necessarily expect budget to directly correlate to enjoyment or impressiveness.

Again, the ride system is not entirely new. It is based on the same technology in use on F.L.Y. at Phantasialand. That coaster is about 80% of the length of Cosmic Rewind, also has a launch, and has a bunch of physical sets built around the coaster. The park charges €45 - €57 to enter and only sees about 2 million visitors per year, just under 2/3 the visitation of Hersheypark. They’re not dropping $100 million on a coaster.

 

[James Alucobond]

Again, the ride system is not entirely new. It is based on the same technology in use on F.L.Y. at Phantasialand. That coaster is about 80% of the length of Cosmic Rewind, also has a launch, and has a bunch of physical sets built around the coaster. The park charges €45 - €57 to enter and only sees about 2 million visitors per year, just under 2/3 the visitation of Hersheypark. They’re not dropping $100 million on a coaster.

Right, I'm just saying I personally have no framework within which to understand why something would or would not cost more, nor do I necessarily equate cost with a ride being impressive in ways that are immediately obvious to me. Like, I don't know what percentage of the cost of an attraction is R&D versus ride system acquisition versus media production versus construction, etc. I can appreciate the general argument that this was historically expensive, but it's difficult for me to associate any specific expectations with that dollar amount.

I also have no way of knowing whether or not this kind of budget would have been allocated in the first place had the Marvel IP not been attached to it, so even on that front, it's hard for me to judge how much this impacted any other potential plans for the park.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Again, the ride system is not entirely new. It is based on the same technology in use on F.L.Y. at Phantasialand. That coaster is about 80% of the length of Cosmic Rewind, also has a launch, and has a bunch of physical sets built around the coaster. The park charges €45 - €57 to enter and only sees about 2 million visitors per year, just under 2/3 the visitation of Hersheypark. They’re not dropping $100 million on a coaster.

But that ride doesn’t rotate riders in sync with offside scenes, a very complex movement, it simply turns the seats at load/unload and then locks them into place in a flying position for the ride itself.

Similar tech but one’s a 2 on the difficulty scale, the others a 12.

FLY looks incredible but it’s kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[DCLcruiser]

Again, the ride system is not entirely new. It is based on the same technology in use on F.L.Y. at Phantasialand. That coaster is about 80% of the length of Cosmic Rewind, also has a launch, and has a bunch of physical sets built around the coaster. The park charges €45 - €57 to enter and only sees about 2 million visitors per year, just under 2/3 the visitation of Hersheypark. They’re not dropping $100 million on a coaster.

Plus, the cost of having the GotG stars perform is millions of $, then the cost of whatever music they have to license, etc.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But that ride doesn’t rotate riders in sync with offside scenes, a very complex movement, it simply turns the seats at load/unload and then locks them into place in a flying position for the ride itself.

Similar tech but ones a 2 on the difficulty scale, the others a 12.

The vehicles do not rotate people onto their sides while sitting in the station. The rotation occurs while the coaster is in motion. Vekoma specifically developed the technology with the idea of mid-ride show scenes in mind. It’s the same technology.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Again, the ride system is not entirely new. It is based on the same technology in use on F.L.Y. at Phantasialand. That coaster is about 80% of the length of Cosmic Rewind, also has a launch, and has a bunch of physical sets built around the coaster. The park charges €45 - €57 to enter and only sees about 2 million visitors per year, just under 2/3 the visitation of Hersheypark. They’re not dropping $100 million on a coaster.

Not just physical sets, a full, incredibly unique and highly themed hotel surrounds the coaster. Honestly, if you want to get upset at how badly Disney is failing at theming and dark rides, watch videos from Phantasialand, Efteling, and Europa Park (or go there - they're all about three hours from one another).

As to how bad the overspending on GotG is, imagine the worst case of overspending you can think of - and times that by about three. That's the ballpark. Or, more accurately, you can just remember CR cost more then all of Diagon Alley, ride included.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Plus, the cost of having the GotG stars perform is millions of $, then the cost of whatever music they have to license, etc.

Lots of attractions feature movie stars. Lots of attractions feature licensed music. Some even feature both. But you can count on one hand how many attractions at Walt Disney World cost more than half of what Cosmic Rewind cost.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I'm curious about a couple points:

Supposedly the size of the screens in CR is a major innovation. How do they compare to a standard Imax screen? How do they compare to the giant screen in Horizons or the speed tunnel in WoM? Also, would it have been feasible to integrate screens that had the remarkable clarities of the ones in Bourne (which was kind of what I was expecting for the price)?

How does CR compare to Universal Japan's Space Fantasy? It's very difficult to get any idea of that ride from video.

When we first started getting specs of the attraction i figured that for $200 million you can make a 200' x 133' (height of the building) wall of iPhones. Just because you have large expensive screens doesn't mean that was the best approach to this.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm curious about a couple points:

Supposedly the size of the screens in CR is a major innovation. How do they compare to a standard Imax screen? How do they compare to the giant screen in Horizons or the speed tunnel in WoM? Also, would it have been feasible to integrate screens that had the remarkable clarities of the ones in Bourne (which was kind of what I was expecting for the price)?

How does CR compare to Universal Japan's Space Fantasy? It's very difficult to get any idea of that ride from video.

IMAX was never actually a certain screen size which is how you might have ended up with a tiny “LieMAX” at your local cineplex. Instead it was really camera, film and projection technology. Typical 70 mm film is 70 mm wide but IMAX film is 70 mm tall, running sideways through the projector.

These days large projections do not need to be done with a single projector, they are instead done with multiple synchronized projectors. This was first done years ago to make up for the differences between large quality film and digital projectors. The Simpsons Ride replace the single IMAX projector of Back to the Future: The Ride with five digital projectors. This is also the root of how Disney’s highly animated projection mapping works, it’s multiple synchronized projections, not a single source.

Large format displays have also long been composed of smaller displays synchronized together to show a single image. As resolution continues to increase there is a need for greater computing power and control but the how has been established for awhile.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

When we first started getting specs of the attraction i figured that for $200 million you can make a 200' x 133' (height of the building) wall of iPhones. Just because you have large expensive screens doesn't mean that was the best approach to this.

When Circa opened their interior sports book the screen was reported as costing over $20 million. Our sports book is much smaller (about a 20x50’ screen) and we were told it was almost $10 million.

As mentioned above these are all made up of small individual panels so the video screens themselves aren’t insanely expensive but as the size increases so does the number of panels, the computing power needed, and the number of controllers needed to run it and sync it all together.

I can’t get a feel for the real size of Cosmic Rewinds screens from watching videos but they don’t look any bigger than what I’ve seen here in Vegas, but even at $20 million a pop it wouldn’t take many for the screens alone to top the $100 million mark.

For a “cheap” technology to replace AAs it sure is expensive.

 

[markham]

I know I’m opening a can of worms here, but it’s kind of hilarious to see ALL of the pearl-clutching about a budget being too big in a forum where there is so much discussion about bean counters and cheaping out.

Are there other things I wish would have gotten this kind of money? Yes. Could they have shaved costs, certainly. Could this exact same ride have been built cheaper, almost assuredly. But Disney makes a bunch of money on its theme parks, and could choose to have bigger budgets on lots of things. R&D is expensive. And necessary. Bureaucracy is rappant at Disney but also any company of its size, and it costs them a lot of money. But they’re too big to be scrappy. There’s too much on the line. And sometimes a camel is the built product of a mission to build a horse. That’s the way these things work.

But instead of criticizing the amount they spent on this, my focus is on why they aren’t spending CR style budgets on other things, since it’s now a precedent. Give me an updated Peter Pan’s Flight that is worthy of the standby line wait time and the memory of it I have from my childhood. Or a truly spectacular nighttime spectacular. Not in place of, but in addition to.

In other words, I say this is an opportunity to raise our collective demands of them to Make. It. Rain.

 

[𝕴𝖒𝖆𝖌𝖎𝖓𝖊𝖊𝖗97]

Plus, the cost of having the GotG stars perform is millions of $, then the cost of whatever music they have to license, etc.

If they'd used animatronics, they would have only needed to use their voices (if that ).

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I know I’m opening a can of worms here, but it’s kind of hilarious to see ALL of the pearl-clutching about a budget being too big in a forum where there is so much discussion about bean counters and cheaping out.

Are there other things I wish would have gotten this kind of money? Yes. Could they have shaved costs, certainly. Could this exact same ride have been built cheaper, almost assuredly. But Disney makes a bunch of money on its theme parks, and could choose to have bigger budgets on lots of things. R&D is expensive. And necessary. Bureaucracy is rappant at Disney but also any company of its size, and it costs them a lot of money. But they’re too big to be scrappy. There’s too much on the line. And sometimes a camel is the built product of a mission to build a horse. That’s the way these things work.

But instead of criticizing the amount they spent on this, my focus is on why they aren’t spending CR style budgets on other things, since it’s now a precedent. Give me an updated Peter Pan’s Flight that is worthy of the standby line wait time and the memory of it I have from my childhood. Or a truly spectacular nighttime spectacular. Not in place of, but in addition to.

In other words, I say this is an opportunity to raise our collective demands of them to Make. It. Rain.

There's perfect logic to the concern about the budget, because ultimately the subject of complaint is the same with overspending and underspending; the misuse of funds.

Notice how nobody complained about how much Rise of the Resistance cost to build? That's because it's staggeringly evident in the ride experience where the money went. Everywhere you look that ride is chock-full of expensive sights and sounds in impressive scale and scope. The result justified the cost. For what they got they spent neither too much nor too little.

Cosmic Rewind is not the same - the ride is a roller coaster through a mostly-empty warehouse with the lights off and projections on the walls. Yet it's the most expensive attraction in the history of the resort by a lot, and despite that doesn't even crack the top 10 most elaborate.

I wouldn't mind Disney having loose purse strings if the result is was an attraction that made good on the record-shattering sums spent on it. But Cosmic Rewind is not that ride. The only thing worse than cheaping out is wasting hundreds of millions on a ride that looks cheap.