EPCOT Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

No Name

No Name

Well-Known Member
If The Zach designed Pandora I bet they would’ve put the floating mountains on large stands and been like “well because of gravity, mountains can’t float! However, here at Walt Disney Imagineering, we’ve truly done our best to create a magical experience!”
 
Patcheslee

Patcheslee

Well-Known Member
Did they cut the geoshapes on either side of the starship from the plans?
Screenshot_20220224-133705_Chrome.jpg

I just noticed the add that popped at the bottom of the forum screen shot lol
 
Last edited:
retr0gate

retr0gate

Well-Known Member
Marc Davis Fan said:
Right, at least one pre-show is confirmed (both in the concept art and in the building schematics).

But is everything else - apart from one pre-show and the ride - simply "queue space," or is there another distinct part of the experience?

That's what'll be interesting to see.

I hope the "multi-part experience" continues being employed, at least to a limited degree (even if not anywhere near the extent of RotR), rather than RotR being a total one-off.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine the queue taking up (almost) the entire original UoE show building and not creating a multi-part experience for the preshow. Undoubtedly, this thing is going to have ridiculous wait times once it's open but even so, all that room inside plus the area around the starblaster (assuming that space will be used for the extended queue) would feel like wasted space if it was all just a standard queue. People keep throwing around the argument that a once 45 minute attraction is being replaced with what will probably be a 3 minute long rollercoaster and, while probably true, my personal theory is that time will be made up for with the preshow(s). That's not to say that the entire experience will match that of Universe of Energy, but I think it'll at least approach the 20 minute mark similar to rise, all things considered. That's probably extremely wishful thinking, but I have high hopes.
 
G

gorillaball

Well-Known Member
sedati said:
View attachment 623935
Click to expand...
I have been confused on the many references to Kittinger Park, is this supposed to be an example of how Disney should have done it better? Does that aircraft not have a large support beam coming out of it?

(and yes, I agree if you build Pandora floating mountains you could have had supports embedded in the wings somehow and be nearly invisible)
 
J

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
egg said:
If The Zach designed Pandora I bet they would’ve put the floating mountains on large stands and been like “well because of gravity, mountains can’t float! However, here at Walt Disney Imagineering, we’ve truly done our best to create a magical experience!”
Click to expand...
I would imagine Zach has very little if any creative control over this specific attraction.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
gorillaball said:
I have been confused on the many references to Kittinger Park, is this supposed to be an example of how Disney should have done it better? Does that aircraft not have a large support beam coming out of it?

(and yes, I agree if you build Pandora floating mountains you could have had supports embedded in the wings somehow and be nearly invisible)
Click to expand...
Proportions.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Incomudro said:
That stand looks pretty beefy considering it's lack of height relative to the height that the Nova Corp ship resides at.
The Nova Corp ship is up there.
And as I've said, I promise you that dimension for dimension the prop outside the Guardians ride is far heavier than any fighter jet that has ever flown.
Click to expand...
The height is irrelevant. All of your excuses were dismissed by a structural engineer but you just say “Nah, they might have used computers.”
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Incomudro said:
And as I've said, I promise you that dimension for dimension the prop outside the Guardians ride is far heavier than any fighter jet that has ever flown.
Click to expand...

Why would you think that?

I have no idea, but I don't see any reason Disney would need to build that prop out of heavy materials. It's not like it actually needs to have an engine, any electronic components, etc. -- it seems unlikely that it would weigh anywhere near as much as an actual plane.
 
Last edited:
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
Why would you think that?

I have no idea, but I don't see any reason Disney would need to build that prop out of heavy materials. It's not like it actually needs to have an engine or any electronic components or anything like that. It seems unlikely that it would weigh more than an actual plane.
Click to expand...
Display aircraft do usually have components like their engines removed. But yeah, it’s a ridiculous argument. This prop is likely made out of something like fiberglass, not metal. it has a steel frame that we have been able to see, but that isn’t solid.

The height also isn’t really an issue. The prop isn’t a super tall skyscraper with very different wind loads between the top and bottom. Nor does it get larger towards the top such that there is some sort of greater load trying to turn the whole thing over.

It’s just desperate excuses that don’t hold up.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom