• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
WoM wasn’t at all heavy-handed either. Nor was Horizons. Honestly, the most heavy-handed EPCOT rides are the ones that survived the longest, the Land, UoE, and even SSE (which is nonetheless one of the greatest rides ever built).
You have to wonder whether part of the difference between then and now is related to the declining craftsmanship of popular entertainment. Back then filmmakers and show business types knew how to carefully modulate tone for effect, how to shape entertainment within/against genre conventions, and when appropriate how to be subtle with their craftsmanship. Could easily be argued none of those things are readily apparent in the vast majority of popular entertainment in 2022, including newer theme park attractions.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
You have to wonder whether part of the difference between then and now is related to the declining craftsmanship of popular entertainment. Back then filmmakers and show business types knew how to carefully modulate tone for effect, how to shape entertainment within/against genre conventions, and when appropriate how to be subtle with their craftsmanship. Could easily be argued none of those things are readily apparent in the vast majority of popular entertainment in 2022, including newer theme park attractions.
I agree to a considerable extent about the decline in theme park craftsmanship but I disagree about film. Blockbuster filmmaking is just as (if not more) skillful as it’s ever been - for instance, we have seen a producer as skilled and accomplished as Feige MAYBE twice before in the history of American studio film. Other genres, from animation to art films, are also just as well crafted, even if the venues in which they debut may have shifted from cinema to streaming. In fact, the shift to streaming has opened up new opportunities for established filmmakers to experiment and for up-and-comers to establish themselves.

I actually think a big chunk of the problem with theme parks is the decline in cross-pollination with filmmaking. A huge chunk of the greatness of Pirates or Motion came from the involvement of Walt’s animators. The visual language of theme parks shares a great deal with cinema, and it often seems like modern park designers don’t grasp that. I have a very hard time believing that CR would have turned out as it did if Feige and Gunn had been intimately involved in the development and design process.
 

gustaftp

Well-Known Member
Sorry, but are you going to compare the appeal of Guardians to riding through the bloodstream?
Maybe if WDW existed without the competition of Uni just down the road, this idea would fly.
Those days are over.
It is this type of transactional thinking that has put EPCOT in the state that it is today.

And if your argument were valid, you are essentially saying Disney was mistaken about attractions like Expedition Everest. Yet EE remains an incredibly popular attraction.

Not everyone wants Disney to take the easy way out. Competing with Universal doesn’t have to mean compromising the very theme of the park. EPCOT was meant to challenge us.
 

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
And the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I bet a bloodstream race attraction (with all the content you would expect there) being hosted by Baymax would be equally popular to Baymax fans as "Baymax takes you on a haphazard tour of Sanfransokyo".

I HIGHLY, HIGHLY doubt anyone loves FEA, Rat, CR, MFSR or MMRR because of the incredibly compelling storyline. They enjoy the fun aspect of the attraction plus characters they love. So, Disney's choice to do these oddly place, ill-fitting stories is 100% on Disney management. They are choosing stories that don't fit well - and that is not required to drive popularity (assuming you understand and respect your setting and source material, of course).
 

flyerjab

Well-Known Member
“Heavy-handedness,” “long drawn out”

Taste is subjective, but I’m genuinely curious, did you ever visit the original EPCOT?
Taste is very subjective, and yours and mine with regard to this park is different. I think by heavy-handed I simply mean a park that attempted to operate at several levels above other parks, including the MK or Disneyland.

For context I will list several facts about myself regarding this particular type of fandom. I was born in 1970, so I was 12 when EPCOT Center opened. However, my family could not afford to go. My first time ever stepping foot on WDW property was 2009. So I never had the pleasure of visiting this park in the 80s, or 90s for that matter. I realize I missed Epcot’s golden age as it were. Fortunately, I have seen all of Martin’s excellent videos of the original lineup.

To me, the big ticket attractions concerned different concepts but were all similar in approach: omnimover attraction to handle a high throughput of guests that was extensive in length with aims to educate and entertain. I can appreciate this. However, for me personally, I think I would find that too much of the same thing after a time. And I at least experienced some of what was in Innoventions before that was forever altered. But that never thrilled me. Again, maybe the original Communicore was better?

I guess I am not torn by the fact that Epcot is changing into something different. For me, WDW is about change. Since I have been visiting, New Fantasyland was added, Downtown Disney completely changed, DAK took on Pandora and expanded Africa, DHS also changed, and now it is Epcot’s turn. It’s been a constant state of change ever since I grew to love it, so I expect this to happen. I still love Spaceship Earth and the show at the American Pavilion, but I also love the Flower and Garden Festival and the Festival of the Holidays. I love World Showcase, but I also love that Epcot has a new omnicoaster. I love variety of experience in a theme park, which is why I love DAK so much - my favorite park. Epcot is now giving me more of that with the additions of Ratatouille and Guardians. But this is just my own humble opinion.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
And the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I bet a bloodstream race attraction (with all the content you would expect there) being hosted by Baymax would be equally popular to Baymax fans as "Baymax takes you on a haphazard tour of Sanfransokyo".

I HIGHLY, HIGHLY doubt anyone loves FEA, Rat, CR, MFSR or MMRR because of the incredibly compelling storyline. They enjoy the fun aspect of the attraction plus characters they love. So, Disney's choice to do these oddly place, ill-fitting stories is 100% on Disney management. They are choosing stories that don't fit well - and that is not required to drive popularity (assuming you understand and respect your setting and source material, of course).
This is so absolutely, gloriously true. Disney has a deep enough IP bench that it would have been the easiest thing in the world to join beloved characters with edutainment concepts. Baymax teaches about the Wonders of Life, Lightning and Mater take you to the World of Motion, Mr. Ray and his new assistant Dory show you the Living Seas, the Guardians take you back to the big bang because Quill is devoted to EPCOT edutainment on a deeply emotional level, the Rocketeer takes you Soarin' through the history of flight (OK, that's a reach, but I really love the Rocketeer).

It's so obvious. And it's a brilliant bit of synergy, since it takes the optimistic technology-based futurism of EPCOT, a key part of the core Disney brand, and spreads it through every one of the companies main filmic IPs, thus increasing the overall coherence of the brand.

Heck, if you wanted something even easier, Iron Man 2 was almost explicit in linking EPCOT to the Stark Expo. Just slap a Stark sticker on everything and you wouldn't even have to alter any of the original rides - they, and the spirit that animates them, fit right into the IP!

But of course, all of this would have required a clear vision from highly placed executives, a much smoother development process, and more competence at every level of the corporation then Disney has demonstrated in decades.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Taste is very subjective, and yours and mine with regard to this park is different. I think by heavy-handed I simply mean a park that attempted to operate at several levels above other parks, including the MK or Disneyland.

For context I will list several facts about myself regarding this particular type of fandom. I was born in 1970, so I was 12 when EPCOT Center opened. However, my family could not afford to go. My first time ever stepping foot on WDW property was 2009. So I never had the pleasure of visiting this park in the 80s, or 90s for that matter. I realize I missed Epcot’s golden age as it were. Fortunately, I have seen all of Martin’s excellent videos of the original lineup.

To me, the big ticket attractions concerned different concepts but were all similar in approach: omnimover attraction to handle a high throughput of guests that was extensive in length with aims to educate and entertain. I can appreciate this. However, for me personally, I think I would find that too much of the same thing after a time. And I at least experienced some of what was in Innoventions before that was forever altered. But that never thrilled me. Again, maybe the original Communicore was better?

I guess I am not torn by the fact that Epcot is changing into something different. For me, WDW is about change. Since I have been visiting, New Fantasyland was added, Downtown Disney completely changed, DAK took on Pandora and expanded Africa, DHS also changed, and now it is Epcot’s turn. It’s been a constant state of change ever since I grew to love it, so I expect this to happen. I still love Spaceship Earth and the show at the American Pavilion, but I also love the Flower and Garden Festival and the Festival of the Holidays. I love World Showcase, but I also love that Epcot has a new omnicoaster. I love variety of experience in a theme park, which is why I love DAK so much - my favorite park. Epcot is now giving me more of that with the additions of Ratatouille and Guardians. But this is just my own humble opinion.
Thanks for the response! I certainly respect your opinion, though I don't really understand your use of "heavy-handed" to describe what seems like it might be more accurately called "ambitious."

I am younger then you but was lucky enough to visit EPCOT soon after it opened and relatively frequently after that. It's where I came to love theme parks. I think its important to conceive of the omnimover as a medium akin to film - the vehicle may be broadly similar, but the rides offered endless variety in tone, genre, style, etc, ensuring that the experience never felt repetitive. And Innoventions in 2009 wasn't even a shadow of classic EPCOT, it was a barren mockery of it.

I don't think anyone is upset with change itself, even at EPCOT. The issue is that, even after a major redesign, EPCOT has no new guiding vision to replace the one that was lost. It remains utterly lost. And while change IS vital to Disney parks so is some level of continuity. Disney theme parks, particularly Disneyland and EPCOT, hold an absolutely unique role in American and, indeed, world culture. No other theme parks - in fact, very few other physical amusements - carry the same cultural, historical, and ideological importance. At one level, they ARE museums - they preserve something very historically significant, something that illuminates much larger social and cultural trends across the second half of the 20th century. This puts a huge extra burden on the folks running Disney, one that isn't placed on the management team at Universal or Dollywood and one that Disney's current management is incapable of understanding, let alone of dealing with effectively. Change and continuity must be managed with incredible delicacy.
 

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
In fact, the shift to streaming has opened up new opportunities for established filmmakers to experiment and for up-and-comers to establish themselves.

I actually think a big chunk of the problem with theme parks is the decline in cross-pollination with filmmaking.
Strongly disagree. IMO parks/films have never been as similar as they are right now. What evidence exists that Feige’s involvement would have led to a better ride? Little in the MCU catalog suggests efficient storytelling, atmosphere over narrative, or a mastery of pacing, all of which WED/WDI used to excel at.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Strongly disagree. IMO parks/films have never been as similar as they are right now. What evidence exists that Feige’s involvement would have led to a better ride? Little in the MCU catalog suggests efficient storytelling, atmosphere over narrative, or a mastery of pacing, all of which WED/WDI used to excel at.
I think you're viewing the past with VERY rose-colored glasses. We have as wide a range of films as ever. If anything has suffered, its mid-budget star vehicles, but those have largely been replaced by streaming series like Severance and the like. We have an impressive assortment of exciting young directors, including Alex Garland, Chloe Zhao, Ari Aster, Robert Eggers, Barry Jenkins, Damien Chazelle, Ryan Coogler, Emerald Fennell, and Darius Marder (that's just off the top of my head). Plus, a lot of older hands like Spielberg, Cronenberg, Lynch, a Coen brother, Campion, Del Toro, Cuaron, Inarittu, Miller, Raimi, Scorsese, Nolan, Cameron, Scott, Tarantino, etc. are continuing to produce great films.

Criticisms of the MCU, when they emerge, are almost always leveled at the conventional cinematography and standardized color palate, so your point about atmosphere might be debatable. The storytelling and pacing, along with the casting and performance, of the Marvel films is a remarkably consistent strength. We have never seen such a run of both critically and popularly lauded films - and I mean that, literally NEVER. Actually, blockbusters in general have arguably become fewer in number but generally higher in quality, with franchises like Mission: Impossible, Top Gun, Bond, and John Wick maintaining a consistent level of excellence. When you actually compare the modern media environment, streaming series and films and cinematic releases combined, to the "good ol' days," I really don't think you see any genuine decline. You may see the reverse.
 

flyerjab

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the response! I certainly respect your opinion, though I don't really understand your use of "heavy-handed" to describe what seems like it might be more accurately called "ambitious."

I am younger then you but was lucky enough to visit EPCOT soon after it opened and relatively frequently after that. It's where I came to love theme parks. I think its important to conceive of the omnimover as a medium akin to film - the vehicle may be broadly similar, but the rides offered endless variety in tone, genre, style, etc, ensuring that the experience never felt repetitive. And Innoventions in 2009 wasn't even a shadow of classic EPCOT, it was a barren mockery of it.

I don't think anyone is upset with change itself, even at EPCOT. The issue is that, even after a major redesign, EPCOT has no new guiding vision to replace the one that was lost. It remains utterly lost. And while change IS vital to Disney parks so is some level of continuity. Disney theme parks, particularly Disneyland and EPCOT, hold an absolutely unique role in American and, indeed, world culture. No other theme parks - in fact, very few other physical amusements - carry the same cultural, historical, and ideological importance. At one level, they ARE museums - they preserve something very historically significant, something that illuminates much larger social and cultural trends across the second half of the 20th century. This puts a huge extra burden on the folks running Disney, one that isn't placed on the management team at Universal or Dollywood and one that Disney's current management is incapable of understanding, let alone of dealing with effectively. Change and continuity must be managed with incredible delicacy.
Love the conversation, and I too respect your opinion! I love intelligent, respectful discourse about this stuff. I have to admit though, I used to be a regular on here years ago but decided to stop posting as I found that my views with regard to certain things were very different from the majority of people that post here. There is a deep love here for the heritage, design, intent and legacy of the Imagineers that took on crafting this “park-sized” homage to the aspects of Walt’s larger vision of what EPCOT could have been.

I have always been one that admired the aesthetics and depth of design that goes into these theme parks. I grew up going to Hershey Park and Dorney Park. I never even knew what the term theme park truly meant until coming to WDW for the first time. Maybe my bar is a little lower because of that.

I have always enjoyed aesthetics and physical theming probably more then an underlying, more cerebral theme of a park. Epcot is deep with meaning, hence my misuse of the term heavy-handed. I think maybe I selected the wrong term from my grab bag of synonyms. I compare it to DAK, my personal favorite of the 4 parks. Two key things - aesthetics and visible theming - are there to be had in excess at that park. Also paramount for me is variety of opportunity, also something DAK is excellent at providing. I tie this into the inclusion of the Guardians omnicoaster to the Epcot lineup. I appreciate the diversity it brings to that park. However, that being said, I see what they are doing; simplifying the theme of this park to allow for an easier application of existing IP and other, less significant concepts to what was once a larger overarching thematic fabric.

This is where I diverge in my overall park expectations. The Guardians ride is my favorite coaster now. The company that’s makes these coasters you can tell really know their craft. The smooth maneuvers that it makes throughout the large gravity building are really something to experience. And there is enough edutainment for me that I am content. Honestly, I was surprised that they even bothered. Anyway, I hope you get to try it and maybe get some enjoyment out of it.
 

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
I think you're viewing the past with VERY rose-colored glasses. We have as wide a range of films as ever. If anything has suffered, its mid-budget star vehicles, but those have largely been replaced by streaming series like Severance and the like. We have an impressive assortment of exciting young directors, including Alex Garland, Chloe Zhao, Ari Aster, Robert Eggers, Barry Jenkins, Damien Chazelle, Ryan Coogler, Emerald Fennell, and Darius Marder (that's just off the top of my head). Plus, a lot of older hands like Spielberg, Cronenberg, Lynch, a Coen brother, Campion, Del Toro, Cuaron, Inarittu, Miller, Raimi, Scorsese, Nolan, Cameron, Scott, Tarantino, etc. are continuing to produce great films.

Criticisms of the MCU, when they emerge, are almost always leveled at the conventional cinematography and standardized color palate, so your point about atmosphere might be debatable. The storytelling and pacing, along with the casting and performance, of the Marvel films is a remarkably consistent strength. We have never seen such a run of both critically and popularly lauded films - and I mean that, literally NEVER. Actually, blockbusters in general have arguably become fewer in number but generally higher in quality, with franchises like Mission: Impossible, Top Gun, Bond, and John Wick maintaining a consistent level of excellence. When you actually compare the modern media environment, streaming series and films and cinematic releases combined, to the "good ol' days," I really don't think you see any genuine decline. You may see the reverse.
Many of your “exciting new directors” have already been sucked into the Disney IP machine. Most of the others have spotty track records (or are simply extensions of the A24 machine, similar to Disney’s branding tbh).

You clearly have a rosier view of modern entertainment, but there’s unquestionably far less variety today than 25 years ago. The same goes for the Disney parks — the 80s-90s saw new additions that covered a lot of attraction types: flume ride, coasters, EMV thrill rides, drop tower, stunt shows, a theatrical puppet show, a horror theatrical show, traditional dark rides, edutainment dark rides, flight simulators, 3D shows, coasters, and so on.

The parks are in many ways showing a similar simplification, not unlike Marvel. Both are brands that come prepackaged so that the audience is, by design, rarely surprised by what they’re shown.
 
Last edited:

celluloid

Well-Known Member
This is where I diverge in my overall park expectations. The Guardians ride is my favorite coaster now. The company that’s makes these coasters you can tell really know their craft. The smooth maneuvers that it makes throughout the large gravity building are really something to experience. And there is enough edutainment for me that I am content. Honestly, I was surprised that they even bothered. Anyway, I hope you get to try it and maybe get some enjoyment out of it.

That is a glowing thing to hear as Vekoma has had quite a comeback in recent decades from being good but often rough.
 

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
I think the real test will be how smooth it can remain over time. That is where they seem to have really struggled.
Vekoma's tend to do better indoors. My prayers to all if this goes the way of Ninja or SLCs. Cosmic Headbang...

(Unlikely given the lower stress on the track and their current designs. But, time will tell with the heavier cars.)
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
I've been withholding this comment since people started posting about the coaster:

Did anyone honestly think that a brand new roller coaster wouldn't be smooth? If that's a selling point... umm...
Indeed.

It's like New Car smell - It makes for an appealing first impression, but it's kind of silly to pretend it's more than that.

I can't recall ever meeting a brand spanking new coaster that wasn't smooth. It's nice to experience that, but it's directly tied to that newness and shouldn't be counted on to last.
 

CntrlFlPete

Well-Known Member
I've been withholding this comment since people started posting about the coaster:

Did anyone honestly think that a brand new roller coaster wouldn't be smooth? If that's a selling point... umm...

For CR though, I do think it is quite an accomplishment at how 'smooth' the movements are -- sure the ride is smooth (and will change as tires wear), but the 'spinning' just feels rather fluid/smooth -- not to mention the rather roomy seats.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom