Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
That’s fair.
I guess I’m thinking of the area of the park. The attractions arent cheap at Uni just the actual area seems a bit thin thematically to me.
-
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
I guess I’m thinking of the area of the park. The attractions arent cheap at Uni just the actual area seems a bit thin thematically to me.
geekza
Well-Known Member
That is an IP-based attraction that they seem to have gotten right.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
Me too. I was hoping what they did to Spider-Man would’ve extended to the whole land by now. I’d also prefer to see Avengers Tower in the future over Doom’s Fear Fall. Not a reskin, just a facade for a new groundbreaking Avengers ride.
They could slap anything car-related on TT/RSR... I always relate to those rides from the perspective of a one-time slot-car racer...
Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Uni has been eating up our Disney budget the last few years, but in all honesty is a great time to be a theme park enthusiast, the competition Disney is getting will hopefully be helpful in the long run as long as thy can differentiate themselves.
BigThunderMatt
Well-Known Member
That won't happen as they're not allowed to add to or alter the attractions in anything more than upkeep or maintenance. I'm shocked they managed to get away with a complete hulk retrack along with on-ride audio and new lighting package.
Stripes
Premium Member
What's interesting is if you look at aerials of various projects, Disney usually puts the building up just as quickly as Universal, if not quicker. It's only until they get to theming that Disney takes substantially longer.
Construction takes longer too. They have different ways of doing things.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Not true.
JediMasterMatt
Well-Known Member
The RV system was way ahead of its time and could've easily been repurposed and pressed into service for a Guardians attraction (via square peg meet round hole mentality) if it had to. It would've been very, very easy to make a 45 minute long trip into the cosmos that could've had allowed for enough filmed (screenz!!!) based content that it could've served as almost a new feature film in the Guardians franchise. It could've used the existing system with the moving theater and an animatronic middle and done so with the same hourly capacity as the new coaster; but, it would've done so with two distinct advantages - it would've added "new" demand at the park as guests want to experience new things and most importantly - done it in an attraction that would provide the guest 45 minutes + of entertainment while not being somewhere else in the park. The park could still have added a coaster and had the best of both worlds.
Unfortunately, there is too much addition by subtraction at WDW. This is especially ironic considering their blessing of size. The reason behind this is that the more attractions/experiences that are added - the more that it costs to operate and maintain them.
Imagineers and maybe guests today, associate E-tickets with "kinetic" motion. Coasters, fast simulators that shake and move quickly, etc. Long gone are the days of a leisurely paced immersive experience. Now the thought is wham, bam, upcharge me man and move along to the next experience to put another notch on the belt. This mentality in design is what is causing the bad attributes of SWL's attractions (the need for kinetic experiences) at the cost of high capacity and/or long ride cycle attractions keeping guests out of line somewhere else. This same problem is being faced by the Marvel team as well.
The problem is that there just aren't very many RV systems around that can deliver both kinetic action and long immersive experiences. As I've said many times before that the last great kinetic motion/high capacity/immersive RV system was lost to Universal and Potter with the Kuka robocoaster. The Shanghai Pirates RV system is as close to the mark as Disney has come to that and that is why the battle over how best to put it to use is being fought.
The real sad state of things is if the same "innovation" used in the Guardians Vekoma coaster would've been applied to Energy's moving theater concept - it would've probably worked even better. Easily the Energy RV's could've been re-engineered to incorporate a motion base under their platform and then all sorts of fun could've been had in the projection rooms and stage section... but... c'est la vie.
I'm sure using the existing building as part of the new structure makes much more sense. Just imagine all the building code loopholes they are taking advantage of.
Last edited:
BigThunderMatt
Well-Known Member
Source? Everyone seems to have a differing opinion on what Universal can and cannot do but nobody seems to be able to pull up where it specifically states in whatever agreement they have what the terms actually are. I'm simply stating what I've continually read to be what the general consensus is. If you're going to sit there and just blatantly shoot down my post with a two word response and no source to back it up it certainly puts your veracity into question.
GlacierGlacier
Well-Known Member
Old IOA, yes. New IOA?
Every new attraction added for a while has had a new/advanced ride system that is most definitely not an amusement park ride. Kong, FJ, Hogwarts Express, new Potter Coaster, all of that is more advanced than a simple amusement park attraction.
I agree.
Superhero Island isn't the worst part of the park (the cartoon area exists), but it feels like a cheeply themed land. Even Hulk, with a nice color scheme and launch tube, is effectively steel spaghetti which doesn't match the rest of the land.
I can only hope that over the next decade or so they go around the lake and rebuild everything to the quality of Potter - or even just Jurrasic Park and Lost Continent.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm
There is no clause in the contract prohibiting new attractions. You can’t show what does not exist. Both marquee attractions have been updated.
I thought he meant with regards to significantly altering the existing attractions.
It’s a given they can add new ones. And they no doubt will.
sedati
Well-Known Member
I believe Disney builds for a longer lifespan than Universal.
Riiiiggghhhttttt...
Princess Leia
Well-Known Member
When I first went to Universal, I preferred Gringotts to Hogwarts, just because the latter made me queasy. The second trip, however, made me realize that Hogwarts is definitely the better ride. The stopping and waiting at the show scenes in Gringotts brings the ride to a halt, and there's no momentum after that first drop. I didn't feel queasy in Hogwarts this time, and enjoyed myself more.
Funny story actually, about something that happened on the last trip for Gringotts. I asked the ride operator if I could not be placed in the front. She directed me... to the second row of the front car. That's still essentially the front. I was fine and all, since the ride isn't that thrilling, but I don't think she realized that some people don't like being in the first car on coasters.
I’m still waiting. Shame the original ride system wasn’t viable.
Princess Leia
Well-Known Member
Wasn’t there talk of Uni developing an Iron Man ride a couple years ago?