Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind SPOILER Thread

[Phicinfan]

This is where you and I disagree. At a Disney Park, the story and fit and immersion is why I go. If I'm just going to Disney for "fun" of the actual ride itself, there are many other places with attractions that are far more fun. The story issues greatly detract from the fun, and I personally don't and can't go to Disney to ignore the story. That 100% defeats the purpose for me.

(And, yes, I am one who has stopped going - even with moving to Orlando in recent years - before that argument comes up.)

Okay so to be clear.....
A Roller coaster ride, in world of Discovery, that has a pre-show about meeting new cultures from outerspace that are close to us, and then have a great ride where you experience "space travel" to save the world isn't immersive enough for you? I get folks here that expect more of Disney, but sometimes I wonder if we don't keep moving the goal posts too much.

This is the new EPCOT, this is world of Discovery now, and they are discovering new worlds, races and peoples from space in a fun ride that highlights being part of a team that "saves the world" How is that not fun and immersive?

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Where's the story in Tron?
Aerosmith?
Big Thunder?
Jungle Cruise?
Space Mountain?
PotC?
Everything doesn't have to be deep.

I think we are talking past each other. I don't believe stories have to be deep at all. In fact, some of the best attractions have simple stories. My point is that they fit in context and have some level of believability in their own reality. It's the shoehorning that I don't like. I actually agree that people who want some long, drawn out story for a 5 minute ride are asking for something way more than is needed.

Most of the attractions you highlight work great because they focus on place setting. There are definitely backstories, but the focus is on the immediate moment. You are visiting a place/doing a thing to see it in that moment. Pirates is probably the best example, pre-Depp. The story is that you are going back to visit a village being ransacked by Pirates. You are visiting it real time. The story unfolds around you. You don't have to have this full story arc in a few minutes. And that's why it worked so well.

Disney Parks used to be able to tell stories without having to write a film short. Being a physical place, you have the luxury of just being there. It's the storytelling of a building vs. the story telling of a film. They are different media.

In short, the stories for great attractions are simple. They actually work (physically) and are believable accordingly. They make sense. You can find layers in them, and they still make sense when you do. They don't feel forced - which is the issue I have with these more recent stories. They are trying to do too much and too little at the same time - in a setting that doesn't naturally work.

Guardians, specifically, tries to tell too many stories at once in too short a time. They demanded a save the world story, had to deal with the Epcot shoehorn and it just doesn't work IMHO. It should have been simpler.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Okay so to be clear.....
A Roller coaster ride, in world of Discovery, that has a pre-show about meeting new cultures from outerspace that are close to us, and then have a great ride where you experience "space travel" to save the world isn't immersive enough for you? I get folks here that expect more of Disney, but sometimes I wonder if we don't keep moving the goal posts too much.

This is the new EPCOT, this is world of Discovery now, and they are discovering new worlds, races and peoples from space in a fun ride that highlights being part of a team that "saves the world" How is that not fun and immersive?

In a word - No. Because I would argue that's not at all what you are doing. I get that people want to make this new version work, but it just doesn't. At least not at the levels the old stories did. The ride is absolutely detailed. There is no doubt. But, there are too many things that don't work together for it to make sense.

The goal posts aren't moving at all. This has been my criticism since the very first uses of IP in the park more recently. The focus is more on the story of the IP and not the park itself.

While I appreciate your creativity, your story of World Discovery doesn't hold up under scrutiny beyond the surface. And, if it did, I would be all for it. The 4 attractions in World Discovery aren't about discovering new worlds. What in Test Track is about discovering new worlds?

Similarly, maybe it's about creating new worlds - as Play and Test Track are about using technology to create new worlds? Then Mission:Space and Guardians fail, since there is no creation on our part there.

Maybe it's about how technology, real and imagined, allows us to explore other worlds (what could have been one idea, especially if Play had been outer space themed instead of Instagram themed) - but Test Track still fails.

The problem is they are trying to blur fantasy and reality in one land. It would be like putting Mission Space next to Smuggler's Run because they are both about space travel. I know they tried to tie in Epcot with the pre-show. But, it's still fantasy. Test Track and Mission:Space are fantasy based in reality. Guardians is fantasy based in MCU scifi fantasy. It's the story of Tomorrowland, not Epcot.

There is no common thread between those 4 pavilions beyond some vague idea of futuristic look. The story just doesn't work if you dig into it at any level. (Much like Tomorrowland has become.)

 

[Phicinfan]

In a word - No. Because I would argue that's not at all what you are doing. I get that people want to make this new version work, but it just doesn't. At least not at the levels the old stories did. The ride is absolutely detailed. There is no doubt. But, there are too many things that don't work together for it to make sense.

The goal posts aren't moving at all. This has been my criticism since the very first uses of IP in the park more recently. The focus is more on the story of the IP and not the park itself.

IP is only an issue if the IP does not meet the area it is placed. While I agree that GotG does not fit old EPCOT, it can fit in NEW EPCOT with the change in direction. Not everyone is old EPCOT like some, to each their own.

While I appreciate your creativity, your story of World Discovery doesn't hold up under scrutiny beyond the surface. And, if it did, I would be all for it. The 4 attractions in World Discovery aren't about discovering new worlds. What in Test Track is about discovering new worlds?

Well lets see what you define as Discovery. Discovery does NOT only mean finding new things... It means you discover what is different or what effects things or learning why things happen. So Space and GotG fits well. As far as Test track - I don't totally disagree with you, but then again the pre-show is designing a car to optimize what it can do, so if you are new to cars or what you need to design for, it does fit the category of Discovery.

Similarly, maybe it's about creating new worlds - as Play and Test Track are about using technology to create new worlds? Then Mission:Space and Guardians fail, since there is no creation on our part there.

Again, where do we state Discovery can ONLY mean one or the other?

Maybe it's about how technology, real and imagined, allows us to explore other worlds (what could have been one idea, especially if Play had been outer space themed instead of Instagram themed) - but Test Track still fails.

See above.

The problem is they are trying to blur fantasy and reality in one land. It would be like putting Mission Space next to Smuggler's Run because they are both about space travel. I know they tried to tie in Epcot with the pre-show. But, it's still fantasy. Test Track and Mission:Space are fantasy based in reality. Guardians is fantasy based in MCU scifi fantasy. It's the story of Tomorrowland, not Epcot.

?? You as a rider learning to guide a rocket or meet aliens or learning to design cars is blurring reality and fantasy? its all fantasy.

There is no common thread between those 4 pavilions beyond some vague idea of futuristic look. The story just doesn't work if you dig into it at any level. (Much like Tomorrowland has become.)

Only if you limit the definition of Discovery. IMO.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. The story of Guardians is based 100% in fantasy. Test Track and Mission:Space are attempts at futurism. They are definitely fantasy versions presenting real world concepts. They are still drawing very, very directly from our real human world. In other words, the story uses fantasy to inspire reality. Guardians' is focused solely on fantasy. It takes ideas from reality to create a fantasy world. There is very little in the Guardians queue that is based in actual technology evolution. We aren't aware of a Xandarian galaxy and are using this to show what it might look like. This is a 100% fantasy world. It's the Tomorrowland story, not the Epcot story.

With that, I don't understand your Discovery argument. By your example, virtually every Disney attraction ever would fit in World Discovery. If the requirement is to tie to technology and explore/discover some new world, each of the following attractions would fit very well in World Discovery. If you agree, then we simply have wildly different views on what a consistent story requires.

1. Dinosaur - showcasing new technology to allow you to explore the ancient world.
2. Alien Encounter/Stitch's Great Escape - demonstrating a new technology to let you interact with a creature from another world.
3. Paris' Space Mountain Mission 2 - Using Verne-esque technology to travel through space.
4. MILF - Showcasing a fantasy technology to allow us to interact with the Monster's World.
5. Star Tours - Boarding another planet's space travel vehicle to allow us to explore parts of the universe (that happen to be tied to Star Wars).

Epcot's story, in any incarnation, focuses in the real world. There are lots of ways to do that - including with IP. But, fantasy is used to tell stories about our actual world and humanity. The fantasy and IP isn't the focus itself it it wants to fit into any version of Epcot's story.

 

[Phicinfan]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. The story of Guardians is based 100% in fantasy. Test Track and Mission:Space are attempts at futurism. They are definitely fantasy versions presenting real world concepts. They are still drawing very, very directly from our real human world. In other words, the story uses fantasy to inspire reality. Guardians' is focused solely on fantasy. It takes ideas from reality to create a fantasy world. There is very little in the Guardians queue that is based in actual technology evolution. We aren't aware of a Xandarian galaxy and are using this to show what it might look like. This is a 100% fantasy world. It's the Tomorrowland story, not the Epcot story.

With that, I don't understand your Discovery argument. By your example, virtually every Disney attraction ever would fit in World Discovery. If the requirement is to tie to technology and explore/discover some new world, each of the following attractions would fit very well in World Discovery. If you agree, then we simply have wildly different views on what a consistent story requires.

1. Dinosaur - showcasing new technology to allow you to explore the ancient world.
2. Alien Encounter/Stitch's Great Escape - demonstrating a new technology to let you interact with a creature from another world.
3. Paris' Space Mountain Mission 2 - Using Verne-esque technology to travel through space.
4. MILF - Showcasing a fantasy technology to allow us to interact with the Monster's World.
5. Star Tours - Boarding another planet's space travel vehicle to allow us to explore parts of the universe (that happen to be tied to Star Wars).

Epcot's story, in any incarnation, focuses in the real world. There are lots of ways to do that - including with IP. But, fantasy is used to tell stories about our actual world and humanity. The fantasy and IP isn't the focus itself it it wants to fit into any version of Epcot's story.

Well yes, technically many could, but they are not in EPCOT.

We can agree to disagree, I don't understand the dire need by some to pigeon hole things into very neat packages. You even admit they use some reality based ideas to get to fantastical ideas - GotG is just getting that much more. IMO.
I will add, isn't Tomorrow land when it was originally developed doing the same thing?

Its a very fun ride, and it for all the issues with current roller coasters at WDW is incredibly fun and smooth.

I will add you have to get your past views of EPCOT out of the reality of Today. EPCOT is NOT focusing on real world. It is focusing on many things, not the least of which with Discovery is what COULD be our future as opposed to what was.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Well yes, technically many could, but they are not in EPCOT.

We can agree to disagree, I don't understand the dire need by some to pigeon hole things into very neat packages. You even admit they use some reality based ideas to get to fantastical ideas - GotG is just getting that much more. IMO.
I will add, isn't Tomorrow land when it was originally developed doing the same thing?

Its a very fun ride, and it for all the issues with current roller coasters at WDW is incredibly fun and smooth.

I will add you have to get your past views of EPCOT out of the reality of Today. EPCOT is NOT focusing on real world. It is focusing on many things, not the least of which with Discovery is what COULD be our future as opposed to what was.

I agree the original Tomorrowland would have suffered a similar fate. The redo into the Buck Rogers version actually solved that and created the storyline where Alien Encounter, Timekeeper, etc. (and the story Guardians uses in Epcot) all worked very, very well together. They have since abandoned it into the thematic mess it is today.

Back to Guardians, we should separate the ride from the story. Save for the big blue box, which offends for a totally different reason, I don't disagree on the ride itself. It's a great physical ride. It's got some very cool gimmicks. The music adds a lot for both enjoyment and nostalgia. I'm focused solely on fit of the story chosen. (Just so I'm clear where we agree and disagree.)

For Epcot's story, I'm not sure I follow. How is Guardians focused on the future that could be? It's set today, not in the future. It's at best an alternative timeline in the MCU, not a look at any possible future.

I think you highlighted one key part where we agree - we simply disagree what it means. Epcot is not focused on many things. Some of it is sci fi, some of it is old Epcot, some of it is real world, some of it is a blend. That's the issue. It lacks consistency, and the park was (at one time) the most thematically consistent of any park in the world. I have no issue with it transitioning, but it should still have a consistent overarching theme. As I've said before, if World Discovery was Guardians, Play (rethemed to a fantasy planetary theme) and Mission:Space, with the story focused on our reality and fantasy of space travel, I could get behind that. (Don't love it, but it works.) It's the abandonment for loose ideas like "Discovery" where they are where they lose me. Especially where they are being draconian in single IP lands.

If World Discovery was a series of 4 films billed as related to each other, it would likely fail miserably or feel quite shoehorned. I guess I hold the same standard for storytelling in the parks.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Not to me it isn't, and never was.
I never really saw a story in Pirates - some say it's there.
Nor, Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise, certainly not Space Mountain.
Rock n Roller Coaster is probably its closest parallel.
Yeah, RnR sets up a story, but the story is extremely basic and doesn't matter to anyone I've ever heard from.
It's more of a premise.
This insistence that there must be story in every ride is something that I don't adhere to.
Sure, it's there in some slightly there in others, and not there at all in others still.
Some rides are just meant to be fun.
This is a fun coaster with a light story, using a combination of ride system, visuals and music.
It's not meant to be analyzed, just enjoyed.
It's a visually and musically augmented indoor coaster - enjoy it without thinking about it too much.

The issue isn't that we're insisting on some story for Cosmic Rewind that Imagineering never intended

The issue is that Imagineering developed and touted this thing as a "Storytelling Coaster" as if that were true (not particularly) and innovative (they've told better and clearer stories on coasters before, as have others). They sold the storytelling like a cornerstone element of the whole project and then absolutely failed to deliver meaningfully on the expectation they went out of their way to set.

 

[Phicinfan]

I agree the original Tomorrowland would have suffered a similar fate. The redo into the Buck Rogers version actually solved that and created the storyline where Alien Encounter, Timekeeper, etc. (and the story Guardians uses in Epcot) all worked very, very well together. They have since abandoned it into the thematic mess it is today.

Back to Guardians, we should separate the ride from the story. Save for the big blue box, which offends for a totally different reason, I don't disagree on the ride itself. It's a great physical ride. It's got some very cool gimmicks. The music adds a lot for both enjoyment and nostalgia. I'm focused solely on fit of the story chosen. (Just so I'm clear where we agree and disagree.)

For Epcot's story, I'm not sure I follow. How is Guardians focused on the future that could be? It's set today, not in the future. It's at best an alternative timeline in the MCU, not a look at any possible future.

Well, to be clear the GotG are not really current world, they are a future aspect, but I get your point yes.

I think you highlighted one key part where we agree - we simply disagree what it means. Epcot is not focused on many things. Some of it is sci fi, some of it is old Epcot, some of it is real world, some of it is a blend. That's the issue. It lacks consistency, and the park was (at one time) the most thematically consistent of any park in the world. I have no issue with it transitioning, but it should still have a consistent overarching theme. As I've said before, if World Discovery was Guardians, Play (rethemed to a fantasy planetary theme) and Mission:Space, with the story focused on our reality and fantasy of space travel, I could get behind that. (Don't love it, but it works.) It's the abandonment for loose ideas like "Discovery" where they are where they lose me. Especially where they are being draconian in single IP lands.

If World Discovery was a series of 4 films billed as related to each other, it would likely fail miserably or feel quite shoehorned. I guess I hold the same standard for storytelling in the parks.

Okay and I can concede some of your points.
To me though the overreaching design of EPCOT has always been a Worlds fair.
WS - is the cultural regions of different areas
FW - was what was the future or how the past moved to the future.

Now,
We still have WS as is, with a few fun rides put in, which to me is fine.
We have World of nature, that uses the Land, the Seas and Moana walk to focus on what Nature is, why it is important, and how we effect it.
We have world of Discovery - the oportunity to learn what you didn't know before - what happens on a rocket to space, what happens in designing cars and see what effects what, and with GotG, what happens when the Universe comes to us. I still grant you that until we really see what Play will be, no idea how that would fit.

To me the outlier has always been Imagination. In the model I outline above - I could see Imagination fitting in Discovery, as you need your imagination to derive the new. But I also get World of Celebration - as an area to celebrate the whole Fair or activity or event - which is EPCOT - just don't see how Imagination fits into that.

 

[FigmentFan82]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. The story of Guardians is based 100% in fantasy. Test Track and Mission:Space are attempts at futurism. They are definitely fantasy versions presenting real world concepts. They are still drawing very, very directly from our real human world. In other words, the story uses fantasy to inspire reality. Guardians' is focused solely on fantasy. It takes ideas from reality to create a fantasy world. There is very little in the Guardians queue that is based in actual technology evolution. We aren't aware of a Xandarian galaxy and are using this to show what it might look like. This is a 100% fantasy world. It's the Tomorrowland story, not the Epcot story.

With that, I don't understand your Discovery argument. By your example, virtually every Disney attraction ever would fit in World Discovery. If the requirement is to tie to technology and explore/discover some new world, each of the following attractions would fit very well in World Discovery. If you agree, then we simply have wildly different views on what a consistent story requires.

1. Dinosaur - showcasing new technology to allow you to explore the ancient world.
2. Alien Encounter/Stitch's Great Escape - demonstrating a new technology to let you interact with a creature from another world.
3. Paris' Space Mountain Mission 2 - Using Verne-esque technology to travel through space.
4. MILF - Showcasing a fantasy technology to allow us to interact with the Monster's World.
5. Star Tours - Boarding another planet's space travel vehicle to allow us to explore parts of the universe (that happen to be tied to Star Wars).

Epcot's story, in any incarnation, focuses in the real world. There are lots of ways to do that - including with IP. But, fantasy is used to tell stories about our actual world and humanity. The fantasy and IP isn't the focus itself it it wants to fit into any version of Epcot's story.

No, it's science fiction. All concepts within attempt to explain fantastical elements as elevated science. Star Wars is fantasy by virtue of having the force which is a "magical and mystical thing" and not intended to be rooted in any type of science

 

[Epcot82Guy]

No, it's science fiction. All concepts within attempt to explain fantastical elements as elevated science. Star Wars is fantasy by virtue of having the force which is a "magical and mystical thing" and not intended to be rooted in any type of science

I would argue Star Wars is space-based fantasy with very loose science fiction ties. (Lucas himself even said that.) Star Trek is far more science fiction. But that's a separate conversation - though one that plays a direct role here.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

No, it's science fiction. All concepts within attempt to explain fantastical elements as elevated science. Star Wars is fantasy by virtue of having the force which is a "magical and mystical thing" and not intended to be rooted in any type of science

The Director seems to disagree:

James Gunn Says Guardians Of The Galaxy Is More Of A Science Fantasy Than Fiction

Before starting work on each Guardians of the Galaxy movie, James Gunn would speak to NASA scientists for advice to keep everything as grounded as possible.

www.thenewsfetcher.com

 

[celluloid]

No, it's science fiction. All concepts within attempt to explain fantastical elements as elevated science. Star Wars is fantasy by virtue of having the force which is a "magical and mystical thing" and not intended to be rooted in any type of science

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Midi-chlorian/Legends Then Star Wars got confusing.

Fantastical is fine, it is the mission statement of the fantasy or fantastical.

Cranium Command(Wonders of Life in general) had pop culture throughout but kept the lense of presentationalism no matter what the subject.

Where Guardians fails for me is it did not have to have something deep, but it could have had something a little more inspirational to the idea that humanity is worth saving. It starts out with a few notes that hit that way, and then just becomes Space Coaster.

 

[Professortango1]

Okay so to be clear.....
A Roller coaster ride, in world of Discovery, that has a pre-show about meeting new cultures from outerspace that are close to us, and then have a great ride where you experience "space travel" to save the world isn't immersive enough for you? I get folks here that expect more of Disney, but sometimes I wonder if we don't keep moving the goal posts too much.

This is the new EPCOT, this is world of Discovery now, and they are discovering new worlds, races and peoples from space in a fun ride that highlights being part of a team that "saves the world" How is that not fun and immersive?

But the ride suffers from the same problem that Mission BO suffers from on the West Coast, the Guardians enlist our help, but we don't do anything. Our role is completely passive. They built up a new type of attraction with an overly complex story to essentially deliver Rockin Rollercoaster or Ghost Galaxy. But the difference is that the experience is happening to US in those lightly themed coasters and in CR we are watching projections of show scenes of the Guardians doing stuff.

I think if Disney wanted to put in a small amount of effort, they could have given us a raucous and sardonic adventure through the history of our galaxy. Have edutainment updated for a 2020 audience with these incredible characters. Instead, we are told we will meet a new culture and the future of technology. Then the universe is threatened by a giant monster, then the Guardians tell us they need our help, then we zoom around and watch the Guardians fix the problem. Its messy and only delivers on what should be the most obvious and least surprising idea on how to adapt GOTG to a ride. "A rollercoaster through space." Cool. We've recreated Space Mountain 50 years later with an IP attached.

 

[FigmentFan82]

The Director seems to disagree:

James Gunn Says Guardians Of The Galaxy Is More Of A Science Fantasy Than Fiction

Before starting work on each Guardians of the Galaxy movie, James Gunn would speak to NASA scientists for advice to keep everything as grounded as possible.

www.thenewsfetcher.com

Maybe you didn't read, his quote is - "They are science fantasy more than science fiction, but I still like them grounded as much as possible in real science,” he explained.
Like Thor, it embraces more fantastical elements, but in the MCU world these "magical elements" are extremely advanced technology

 

[lazyboy97o]

Where's the story in Tron?
Aerosmith?
Big Thunder?
Jungle Cruise?
Space Mountain?
PotC?
Everything doesn't have to be deep.

There is story in all of those. Story is the defining characteristic of themed entertainment. A theme park without story isn’t a theme park.

 

[LSLS]

Look, the ride is fun (even if I can't follow the story while on the ride), and I'm sure it goes together well throughout the ride, but there's no way you will convince me it fits in Epcot. You are in a made-up location, briefed by made-up aliens from a made-up planet, when a made-up super-villain steals some made-up energy, and then made-up lead you through made-up worm holes to defeat made-up villain and save the made-up energy. Legit the only two things based in reality are you are acknowledged in the preshow as being from Earth, and you are in the universe somewhere. But that makes it fit with the other two rides there? If we are fine with the education aspect going totally away, and theming being that generic, Ok, but I don't think there can be a whole lot of complaints about Zootopia in AK, or Frozen in Norway.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Disney tried to make the storytelling on Cosmic Rewind very cinematic, and they succeeded, to the extent that the attraction feels like a film that was stuck in development for years, went through multiple writers and a change in studio management, and was eventually dumped in a limited January release. Its the Rise of Skywalker of theme park rides. There's a lot of plot, told through unbroken exposition, and its meandering, unclear, internally inconsistent, and uninteresting. Even worse, its unimportant, because none of the laborious plot is reflected in the experience of the ride itself. The narrative clearly reflects profound problems in the attractions development.

The ride may be an enjoyable physical experience. But the theming and narrative, the things that are supposed to make a Disney ride different, are a failure ON THE TERMS THE ATTRACTION SETS FOR ITSELF. Even the rides staunchest defenders haven't been able to explain the storyline and have instead tried to handwave it away.

 

[FigmentFan82]

Disney tried to make the storytelling on Cosmic Rewind very cinematic, and they succeeded, to the extent that the attraction feels like a film that was stuck in development for years, went through multiple writers and a change in studio management, and was eventually dumped in a limited January release. Its the Rise of Skywalker of theme park rides. There's a lot of plot, told through unbroken exposition, and its meandering, unclear, internally inconsistent, and uninteresting. Even worse, its unimportant, because none of the laborious plot is reflected in the experience of the ride itself. The narrative clearly reflects profound problems in the attractions development.

The ride may be an enjoyable physical experience. But the theming and narrative, the things that are supposed to make a Disney ride different, are a failure ON THE TERMS THE ATTRACTION SETS FOR ITSELF. Even the rides staunchest defenders haven't been able to explain the storyline and have instead tried to handwave it away.

If I'm remembering from my rides this past weekend I think Quill says something like the bad guys reasons don't make a lot of sense or are very vague, which I almost took to being a maybe way too meta way to say this ride doesn't have much plot but to just go with it

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

This is where you and I disagree. At a Disney Park, the story and fit and immersion is why I go. If I'm just going to Disney for "fun" of the actual ride itself, there are many other places with attractions that are far more fun. The story issues greatly detract from the fun, and I personally don't and can't go to Disney to ignore the story. That 100% defeats the purpose for me.

(And, yes, I am one who has stopped going - even with moving to Orlando in recent years - before that argument comes up.)

Wait, you haven't been to WDW in 'recent years', yet you are convinced this new ride is terrible?