-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Haymarket2008
Well-Known Member
I'm still struggling with how a Guardians of the Galaxy roller coaster replacing Universe of Energy is "relevant" to Epcot. Maybe we just don't understand the modern Disney corporate-babble of Bob Chapek, kind of like the scene in "Goldmember" where Austin and Nigel Powers start speaking "English English".
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
I'll answer your question with a question:
"What's Epcot?"
Meaning what is present day FutureWorld?
The answer could be: It's not relevant to Epcot's Future World because Future World won't be a thing in the future.
Jenny72
Well-Known Member
I don't really see how GotG is relevant *or* timeless. Having five movies plus comic books, etc. doesn't make something timeless. We could argue about what "timeless" means, but to me, dealing with universal themes in a deeply effective way is generally what makes something timeless. In other words, it reveals a truth that existed hundreds of years ago and is just as true now. GotG seems to be more about fun and adventure.
englanddg
One Little Spark...
spacemt354
Chili's
A good majority of attractions at Disney fall under the category of family friendly, with a few exceptions being Mission: SPACE Orange and Rock n Roller Coaster (mostly due to the height requirement on the later) Even RnRC is tamer compared to Hulk or most coasters at Six Flags or Cedar Point, etc.
Star Wars 7/8, all of the MCU, Pirates of the Caribbean, Harry Potter, etc are all rated PG-13 - and none of those film attractions are what I would consider 'teen' friendly. Family friendly is a broad term and I see a lot of families go see those films and then ride those attractions. Not being intense isn't a death nail for the attraction (especially 3+ years out from opening)
Star Wars 7/8, all of the MCU, Pirates of the Caribbean, Harry Potter, etc are all rated PG-13 - and none of those film attractions are what I would consider 'teen' friendly. Family friendly is a broad term and I see a lot of families go see those films and then ride those attractions. Not being intense isn't a death nail for the attraction (especially 3+ years out from opening)
Last edited:
Chris82
Well-Known Member
Hmm I don't know. "We want to make our park more timeless" and "We are going to fill our park with franchises less than five years old" don't really mesh in my head, no matter how popular the franchises are at the moment.
DisneyFan18
Well-Known Member
Martin, is the new technology you mentioned that would be used for the attraction still part of the plan? It’s just a Space Mountain type system doesn’t feel like a new and innovative coaster system
GiveMeTheMusic
Well-Known Member
At this point destroying the theme of Epcot and shoving in IP is just how it's going to be and cannot be stopped. I don't feel it's worth going abck and forth over whether GOTG is a good IP at this point, it's clearly a Chapek favorite and it's a done deal.
I'm more concerned with the plans for the actual attraction.
An indoor, non-inverted launch coaster with no real show scenes, just projections and lighting effects.
I'm racking my brain here, but jeez it sounds so familiar. Oh wait, that's because that's exactly what TRON is, just with bike seats. And oh sure the queue and pre-shows will be elaborate yada yada yada those things are well and good, but people don't come for pre-shows, they come for the ride.
So what I'm wondering is why two such similar attractions are opening at WDW at essentially the same time, when the world of possibilities in themed entertainment are now so boundless. And yet, WDW thinks that two show-scene free launch coasters is the right way to light $300 million on fire.
I'm more concerned with the plans for the actual attraction.
An indoor, non-inverted launch coaster with no real show scenes, just projections and lighting effects.
I'm racking my brain here, but jeez it sounds so familiar. Oh wait, that's because that's exactly what TRON is, just with bike seats. And oh sure the queue and pre-shows will be elaborate yada yada yada those things are well and good, but people don't come for pre-shows, they come for the ride.
So what I'm wondering is why two such similar attractions are opening at WDW at essentially the same time, when the world of possibilities in themed entertainment are now so boundless. And yet, WDW thinks that two show-scene free launch coasters is the right way to light $300 million on fire.
Timothy_Q
Well-Known Member
It can still be “teen friendly”.
Tron doesn’t have inversions either and I wouldn’t label it a family coaster
Coaster Lover
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Have we definitively ruled out VR as being a possibility for this attraction? Some may argue that VR is the "cheap" way out of not doing a ton of physical sets, but I've been on enough rides/coasters with VR integrated to feel like I can say that it REALLY adds a lot to the experience and is WAY more than just a gimmick. If a coaster was already designed with VR in mind, it really wouldn't have to have anything else unique about it and if anyone can really show the industry how to do VR on an attraction right, Disney would/should be able to... it would seem like the perfect fit for an IP that is so heavily dependent on computer generated elements.
GiveMeTheMusic
Well-Known Member
Wow and I thought I was being conservative.
How can a Shanghai exact clone and a scene-free indoor coaster cost more than $500 million???
Coaster Lover
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Yeah, it always surprises me when I hear the cost of current Disney projects and then remember that (according what to what we are led to believe) Expedition Everest only cost 100 million USD back in 2006. I mean, hardware wise, that was a relatively long (>4400 ft) and relatively tall (>110 ft) coaster with a LOT of themeing to make that mountain. I don't feel like TRON is that much more elaborately themed, technically demanding, or just flat out bigger than Everest and yet at the same time I can't believe that inflation would cause the cost to build a comparable attraction up so much... makes me wonder if the original $100 million figure for Everest is low or what they are doijg to cook the books in recent projects...
GiveMeTheMusic
Well-Known Member
I cannot convey just how indignant I would be if I was running WDPR and WDI came to me with a $200 million+ indoor coaster with no scenes. For pete's sake, the queue building already exists!
It's incredible. It's been I don't know how long since this much money has been spent on WDW, and not a bit of it interests me in the slightest (I live down the street from DLR and have been to DLP/SDL so Star Wars, Rat, and TRON are not selling points for me).
It's incredible. It's been I don't know how long since this much money has been spent on WDW, and not a bit of it interests me in the slightest (I live down the street from DLR and have been to DLP/SDL so Star Wars, Rat, and TRON are not selling points for me).
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
Does any of that budget account for paying the actors for their on-screen presence?
DisneyDodo
Well-Known Member
The theme of the pavilion is energy, so for this ride to be "relevant," it must relate to energy. The fact that the GotG IP is incorporated into the attraction doesn't determine whether that goal will be met. In fact, given that we have very few details about the actual content of the ride, there is currently no way for us to fairly assess whether that goal will be met. The article by the site that shall not be named did predict, based off internal documents, that the first pre-show will center around Infinity Stones, which are apparently a source of energy (I'm not familiar with the GotG movie plots FWIW), so that's at least a minor indication that energy will be referenced, though, again, it's too early to draw conclusions.
[DISCLAIMER: I know the following point has been made on here 1,000 times, but that pales in comparison the number of times the "GotG has no place in Epcot" argument has been made, so I feel no remorse repeating it.]
GotG has no less to do with energy than Ellen Degeneres does (in fact, it actually appears to have more to do with energy). Disney will hopefully use the GotG IP to tell a story about energy, the same way they did with Ellen. This attraction should be less pedantic than its predecessor, which some may view as a downgrade, though I think the low popularity of EEA and its reputation as a nap-inducer would indicate that such people would be in the minority.