News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[MrPromey]

Some here would be well served to read this:

Concept art - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My point (in all of this) is unless you have a plan to share that personally with everyone on earth, you're never going to get the majority of the public to understand.

You can call them all stupid, lament how our public school systems have failed society, or whatever else but that doesn't change reality.

It's unfix-able.

Disney's messaging on the other hand, could be fixed if they actually wanted to fix it.

Personally, I don't think they do.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If they want to release something to the public, don't share details of something you don't know are actually coming.

To build on this, released “concept art” isn’t just something grabbed off of the walls. A far more accurate term than “concept art” would be “promotional art.” Any artwork released has been reviewed and approved. It’s a whole involved process. Sometimes it starts with actual art used in the design process but it’s also not at all uncommon for the art to be made for the sole purpose of releasing it. This isn’t really concept art we are discussing, it is art made or edited for advertising. You’re early analogy of a trailer containing cut scenes from a movie is very similar.

 

[trainplane3]

Seems like the fact they weren't even there for the opening day isn't a good sign. WDW's entertainment is being run on a shoestring budget right now, so maybe one day, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Extremely obvious. Took a friends relative to DHS yesterday. It was easily their least favorite park because "there's like 5 rides and they're all big thrills". They wanted streetmosphere and it was nowhere to be found.

Epcot was good to them. MK was excellent for them.

 

[UNCgolf]

Extremely obvious. Took a friends relative to DHS yesterday. It was easily their least favorite park because "there's like 5 rides and they're all big thrills". They wanted streetmosphere and it was nowhere to be found.

Epcot was good to them. MK was excellent for them.

This is why I liked the DHS of 25 or so years ago more than current DHS, even though current DHS has more attractions.

It also doesn't help that most of the new attractions aren't very good -- Rise and MMRR are the only ones I haven't been on, and they're also the only two that look pretty good (Slinky Dog is relatively fun, but it's not worth waiting in a 60+ minute line; I'd only ride standby if the line was 20 minutes or less). Even there, though, MMRR doesn't look nearly as good as GMR.

 

[Disorbust]

MGM was our fave in the 2000 just for the streetmosphere.

 

[Captain Culpepper Cline]

To change the topic, Dave B doesn't seem excited about the ride. Just seemed nervous to ride it.

 

[mergatroid]

Out of curiosity where do people stand with commercials for attractions including things not in the attractions? The reason I ask is because we often see commercials from theme parks such as this from Universal for Hagrid's where there's clearly elements shown that don't exist in the attraction. They show 'mythical creatures' in the forest that simply don't exist in the attraction, such as the flying elves (?) and half man/half horse firing a bow and arrow. It personally doesn't bother me as it gives a feel of the attraction and things change, however going off the complaints of things being shown that don't make the final cut I'm sure they'll be fury aplenty by those criticising Guardians for similar



And in interest of fairness Disney do similar including adding CGI sparks to Kylos light saber as it comes through the roof here



Personally I'm not sure how many guests book trips based solely on concept art or commercials based on the inclusion on one or two characters. It's certainly worth debate with valid arguments on both sides. You can't blame guests for not checking whether there's specific things shown in concept art or commercials before booking, I'm just not sure how many of them there are. I mean I love the velocicoaster, it's superb and fun for an unboxed coaster. However Universal's concept art shows numerous Velociraptors along the track whereas in the final product there's 2?

https:///wp-content/uploads/2020/11/0928_universal_jurassic_velocicoaster_concept_art-1.jpeg

https:///wp-content/uploads/2020/12/velocicoaster-concept-art-1-4306914.jpg

Raptors everywhere going from that, let's hope folks didn't take it literally and go along expecting to see that many or anywhere near the number alongside the track.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

The reason I ask is because we often see commercials from theme parks such as this from Universal for Hagrid's where there's clearly elements shown that don't exist in the attraction. They show 'mythical creatures' in the forest that simply don't exist in the attraction, such as the flying elves (?) and half man/half horse firing a bow and arrow.

However Universal's concept art shows numerous Velociraptors along the track whereas in the final product there's 2?

So, you've never been on these attractions or even watched a video of them?

 

[mergatroid]

So, you've never been on these attractions or even watched a video of them?

Yes was at Universal in March and loved it. Go almost every year. Genuinely have no memory of them featuring?

Edit. In one video I see a blurry shape in the tunnel, if that the ha;f man/half horse? No idea where the flying elves are still or all the velociraptors in the concept art?

 

[Furiated]

Yes was at Universal in March and loved it. Go almost every year. Genuinely have no memory of them featuring?

Edit. In one video I see a blurry shape in the tunnel, if that the ha;f man/half horse? No idea where the flying elves are still or all the velociraptors in the concept art?

I think he was asking because both the Cornish Pixies and the Centaur are indeed on Hagrids.

Ah, I see you made an edit.

 

[JonsMovies]

The 4 featured raptors from Jurassic World are along the first half of the track in the paddock section as static figures. There are also two caged animatronic raptor heads in the queue along with projections of the raptors during the first launch tunnel.

 

[mergatroid]

The 4 featured raptors from Jurassic World are along the first half of the track in the paddock section as static figures. There are also two caged animatronic raptor heads in the queue along with projections of the raptors during the first launch tunnel.

Different to the concept art though which is the point some are making, the art shows velociraptors everywhere as though the experience is they're attacking you and jumping out at you rather than static. It's a great ride which I rode twice and the fun it creates makes up for the lack of featured raptors or the feeling of being chased. I'm just pointing out for those who want to critically analyse Guardians (concept art being the latest thing) that it happens elsewhere too.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Different to the concept art though which is the point some are making, the art shows velociraptors everywhere as though the experience is they're attacking you and jumping out at you rather than static. It's a great ride which I rode twice and the fun it creates makes up for the lack of featured raptors or the feeling of being chased. I'm just pointing out for those who want to critically analyse Guardians (concept art being the latest thing) that it happens elsewhere too.

Again, the issue is not that an image was not exactly recreated. These pieces are also clearly advertising collages, not “concept art,” with there being little concern for things like scale and perspective.

 

[Incomudro]

Again, the issue is not that an image was not exactly recreated. These pieces are also clearly advertising collages, not “concept art,” with there being little concern for things like scale and perspective.

So, concept art "concept" it's right there in the wording - can be taken literally, and we can deride a park for it's finished product not being accurate to the concept.
But if it's an advertising collage - then anything goes, and we can't hold that park to the same standards.
Ok.
Hey, ever see automotive concept art?
Ever notice how the production vehicle differs from the concept art?

 

[lazyboy97o]

So, concept art "concept" it's right there in the wording - can be taken literally, and we can deride a park for it's finished product not being accurate to the concept.
But if it's an advertising collage - then anything goes, and we can't hold that park to the same standards.
Ok.
Hey, ever see automotive concept art?
Ever notice how the production vehicle differs from the concept art?

How many times must it be stated that “concept art” is not always from the concept design phase? Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?

And yes, different pieces of art have different purposes.

 

[Casper Gutman]

So, concept art "concept" it's right there in the wording - can be taken literally, and we can deride a park for it's finished product not being accurate to the concept.
But if it's an advertising collage - then anything goes, and we can't hold that park to the same standards.
Ok.
Hey, ever see automotive concept art?
Ever notice how the production vehicle differs from the concept art?

Did you get upset when a leprechaun didn't try to steal your breakfast cereal or a giant, anthropomorphic cheetah failed to show up when you opened a bag of cheese snacks? Yes, people know to interpret explicit advertising material non-literally. Officially released concept art, on the other hand, is supposed to give a much more literal impression of the final product. Things might change during development, but if they do the publicly released concept art should change - when a company keeps using the same concept art over and over, they are attempting to create the impression that it accurately reflects the final product.

It's understandable why Disney leaned so heavily on the image in question - the actual attraction is uniformly visually unimpressive and the cost-cut preshow is stunningly lackluster. The continued use of the misleading concept art merely highlights the extent to which Disney knew that their budget slashing (on a ride that was still the most expensive ever built) was producing a much less appealing product then was initially suggested.

 

[celluloid]

It would be like a Marvel movie promoting a character in a films teaser with a voice and brief footage and then it never delivers with that character not in the film at all. It is not a wrong in a moral imparative but it sure is Badly handled. By the time concept art gets to the public, it is meant to incite as well as give an idea of what will be included. This one is pretty far gone.

Groot is barely a part of this other than him giving his cameo in the preshow. Let alone an animatronic on a platform or greeting people outside.

 

[MrPromey]

Out of curiosity where do people stand with commercials for attractions including things not in the attractions? The reason I ask is because we often see commercials from theme parks such as this from Universal for Hagrid's where there's clearly elements shown that don't exist in the attraction. They show 'mythical creatures' in the forest that simply don't exist in the attraction, such as the flying elves (?) and half man/half horse firing a bow and arrow. It personally doesn't bother me as it gives a feel of the attraction and things change, however going off the complaints of things being shown that don't make the final cut I'm sure they'll be fury aplenty by those criticising Guardians for similar



And in interest of fairness Disney do similar including adding CGI sparks to Kylos light saber as it comes through the roof here



Personally I'm not sure how many guests book trips based solely on concept art or commercials based on the inclusion on one or two characters. It's certainly worth debate with valid arguments on both sides. You can't blame guests for not checking whether there's specific things shown in concept art or commercials before booking, I'm just not sure how many of them there are. I mean I love the velocicoaster, it's superb and fun for an unboxed coaster. However Universal's concept art shows numerous Velociraptors along the track whereas in the final product there's 2?

https:///wp-content/uploads/2020/11/0928_universal_jurassic_velocicoaster_concept_art-1.jpeg

https:///wp-content/uploads/2020/12/velocicoaster-concept-art-1-4306914.jpg

Raptors everywhere going from that, let's hope folks didn't take it literally and go along expecting to see that many or anywhere near the number alongside the track.

I think in the Hagrid's case, it's absolute crap. (I like the ride, mind you)

I could understand this one creating a ton of confusion for people who've actually already been to the land because what they show, frankly, IS a major way they do things in Forbidden Journey. Based on that commercial, it looks more like a simulator or simulator hybrid than the actual coaster it is.

Here though, Disney led the way, too.

Take this commercial from 1994 for Tower of Terror:



Now, I love ToT but the ride they show in the commercial simply doesn't exist and I recall friends reactions the first time they rode it and were confused about sitting down and getting lap bars because of the commercials (they had lap bars back then).

Also, Alien Encounter was shown like like a classic style attraction with plenty of in-theater visuals; oozing slime, shots of parts of the alien outside the capsule, etc. none of which were in the actual attraction. (I couldn't find the commercial for that one)

In the case of Alien, I sort of understand because it's really hard to make a TV commercial about something that happens all in the dark but the commercial really did project the idea of a much more complete experience than you got.

The false way things are presented has always bugged me and yeah, although I don't have examples front of mind beyond what you're showing (mostly because I don't watch live TV anymore to see the commercials and for a long time Universal was simply not interesting enough to me to try to keep track of), Universal doesn't get a pass for it in my book, either.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I actually didn't ride Tower of Terror for a couple of years when it opened because I thought you stood up during the ride (due to that commercial and the billboard).

 

[MisterPenguin]

How many times must it be stated that “concept art” is not always from the concept design phase? Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?

I'm totally on board with what you're saying. Keep up the good fight! Maybe this will help:

Concept Art: During the conceiving of what the ride **might** look like, artists draw out a possible look of the attraction. There not only may be, but will probably be, elements that don't actually get made (e.g., the trench part of SDD or the Barn Store in Toy Story Land). The art is made before final plans are finalized. Things can be changed due to engineering concerns, operational concerns, differing design choices, or the dread "value engineering," which is just trying to stay in budget.

Artist Rendering (of finalized plans): Once everything is finalized and blueprints are given to contractors to build, Disney can release an artist's rendering of what it will look like. Actually, they don't have to... they have the CAD drawings to create a 3D realistic rendering. But, they chose to give it to an artist to make it artsy by applying filters and blurring it and adding landscaping and people into the drawing. As @lazyboy97o mentioned above, the artist rendering of Riviera was based on the finalized plans. Not "conceptual" at all.

Promotional Art: Like the Artist Rendering, but designed to market the attraction. Make take liberties by adding fantastical elements, like one of the characters from the IP actually riding the ride, even though it's never intended to happen.