Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind SPOILER Thread

[yensidtlaw1969]

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

I did read, hence why I shared it. He says that for how much they try to keep things grounded in science the movies still favor science fantasy more than science fiction.

 

[Phicinfan]

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.

So to be clear....
You should ONLY enjoy Test Track if you are a car designer? No fantasy involved there as we are ALL car designers
You should ONLY enjoy Mission Space if you are an astronaut? Which we obviously all are?

I joke but it is legitimate. I get some don't feel the ride fits, I don't disagree that I would have loved to see this in DHS. That all being said the new EPCOT is not edjutainment, and it is not technology.

The new EPCOT seems more on what the areas call out - Nature focuses on Nature, Discovery focuses on discovery - and certainly the potential discovery of life out in space that is close to ours can fit in that category.

This isn't the EPCOT of old, and I too lament that, but to simply dismiss everything cause it isn't old EPCOT seems to be a bit closed minded.

 

[FigmentFan82]

I did read, hence why I shared it. He says that for how much they try to keep things grounded in science the movies still favor science fantasy more than science fiction.

but I still like them grounded as much as possible in real science

He admits they are fantastical by design but grounded to be explained by science, hence science fiction. nothing is explained away by magic in GotG.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

but I still like them grounded as much as possible in real science

He admits they are fantastical by design but grounded to be explained by science, hence science fiction. nothing is explained away by magic in GotG.

I’m not sure how you can read that quote as anything but “despite all the science we like to put in here, it’s ultimately fantasy”.

For all the science it’s grounded in, it’s not enough to take it out of the Science Fantasy realm and put it properly into Science Fiction. If that weren’t the case he would have just said it’s Science Fiction, which he categorically didn’t.

 

[UNCgolf]

I'm pretty sure the Power Stone and Ego the Living Planet are explained away by magic, at least by implication.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

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

No. I didn't say that. I now minimize my time there and did not renew an Annual Pass. I have been on property within the last 60 days. (I even saw one of our forum members!)

I understand what you are saying, but that's not me. I was more addressing the people who say we complain but still go and spend the time and money at WDW like we always have. I visit parks here in town quite often, but no longer WDW. I was finally pushed too far within the last two years and put my money where my mouth is. That's my point.

And, despite that, the argument isn't that the ride is terrible. It's that the story is terrible and doesn't fit. That can be criticized by anyone.

 

[Incomudro]

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.

And there's a story with GotG.
The extent of all of these stories varies.
A couple of you people here are arguing this like the story Guardians promised was A Tale of Two Cities.
It's Guardian's for heavens sake.
Much as I love the Guardians movies - I try not to get to analytical over them.
It's Guardians... It's not that deep even in moments when the films try to be.
Most of you here are using this technique to bash what is a clearly popular and hugely fun ride, because you never wanted that ride in the first place.
So your mission is an intellectual dismantlement of something that doesn't warrant such an effort.
It's kind of like rock music:
Some of it is deep, and is made for you to take a deep dive and pick apart - like Pink Floyd.
And some of it is dumb fun - like the Ramones.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And there's a story with GotG.
The extent of all of these stories varies.
A couple of you people here are arguing this like the story Guardians promised was A Tale of Two Cities.
It's Guardian's for heavens sake.
Much as I love the Guardians movies - I try not to get to analytical over them.
It's Guardians... It's not that deep even in moments when the films try to be.
Most of you here are using this technique to bash what is a clearly popular and hugely fun ride, because you never wanted that ride in the first place.
So your mission is an intellectual dismantlement of something that doesn't warrant such an effort.
It's kind of like rock music:
Some of it is deep, and is made for you to take a deep dive and pick apart - like Pink Floyd.
And some of it is dumb fun - like the Ramones.

Disney themselves came up with the term “storytelling coaster” which they said reflected how this coaster has more storytelling than any other coaster before it.

You’re the only one talking about the story being deep. A clear strawman because you’re also claiming there shouldn’t be any story and denying Disney’s own position on the attraction. You’re throwing out a bunch of excuses hoping one might stick.

 

[LSLS]

So to be clear....
You should ONLY enjoy Test Track if you are a car designer? No fantasy involved there as we are ALL car designers
You should ONLY enjoy Mission Space if you are an astronaut? Which we obviously all are?

I joke but it is legitimate. I get some don't feel the ride fits, I don't disagree that I would have loved to see this in DHS. That all being said the new EPCOT is not edjutainment, and it is not technology.

The new EPCOT seems more on what the areas call out - Nature focuses on Nature, Discovery focuses on discovery - and certainly the potential discovery of life out in space that is close to ours can fit in that category.

This isn't the EPCOT of old, and I too lament that, but to simply dismiss everything cause it isn't old EPCOT seems to be a bit closed minded.

You are making a comparison of a ride in which you run through simulations in a car to fighting an alien monster for a fake energy core. One is grounded and based in reality, one is total fantasy.

You are telling me the new epcot is legit anything. Not based on any sort of education or reality. That ride is not about discovering life in outer space. You aren't taking a rocket and searching for life. You are in a totally fake space craft with no basis in reality, fighting a fake monster while going through totally made up jumps in the universe. Again, the only part of it that has a basis in reality is that it happens across outer space (and made up places in outer space at that). I mean, are you trying to tell me that space ranger spin is also a thematic fit for epcot? Or Batuu? Should we relocate Stich over there? If discovery simply means anything that we set in the universe, what doesn't fit?

Edit to add, I will again mention that was one of the most fun rides I've been on at Disney, maybe my favorite there (maybe it's a tad too much spinning, but it's a blast). I just don't think it fits in the least into Epcot (and the box, but that's way past beating a dead horse).

 

[Phicinfan]

You are making a comparison of a ride in which you run through simulations in a car to fighting an alien monster for a fake energy core. One is grounded and based in reality, one is total fantasy.

Both are fantasy as most are NOT car designers. I will add the whole point of space exploration is to see if there is anything else out there, while I agree the story is fantasy, the science still exists.

You are telling me the new epcot is legit anything. Not based on any sort of education or reality. That ride is not about discovering life in outer space. You aren't taking a rocket and searching for life. You are in a totally fake space craft with no basis in reality, fighting a fake monster while going through totally made up jumps in the universe. Again, the only part of it that has a basis in reality is that it happens across outer space (and made up places in outer space at that). I mean, are you trying to tell me that space ranger spin is also a thematic fit for epcot? Or Batuu? Should we relocate Stich over there? If discovery simply means anything that we set in the universe, what doesn't fit?

I am telling you what Disney is telling you. This isn't old Epcot. This is new EPCOT. Part of Discovery whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, is to find what we don't know or understand, it is the REASON for Discovery. The whole pre-show of GotG is the fact that they are reaching out to Terrans due to discovery of us and how close we are, and how our beginnings are similar. There is some ... reality to that.

Edit to add, I will again mention that was one of the most fun rides I've been on at Disney, maybe my favorite there (maybe it's a tad too much spinning, but it's a blast). I just don't think it fits in the least into Epcot (and the box, but that's way past beating a dead horse).

It is fun, and that to me is key. It is fun sometimes just to have fun and not over analyze every bit of it.

 

[retr0gate]

Both are fantasy as most are NOT car designers. I will add the whole point of space exploration is to see if there is anything else out there, while I agree the story is fantasy, the science still exists.

Let me start by saying I do actually agree with what you've been saying for the most part, but this is not the best justification as it's merely based on a technicality. That said, both attractions have some element of fantasy (and in this case, it's clear which relies on it more) and, I agree, that's no reason to say this attraction doesn't belong in EPCOT. Fantastical elements have always been a part of EPCOT attractions both new and old to help draw people in. They used real people and locations to tell fictional stories, even if those "stories" were just limited to a single gag or scene. The primary difference between Cosmic Rewind and the pavilions of yesteryear is a matter of where that emphasis on fantasy is placed. In the past, these fantasy elements were used to contribute to a much larger idea or concept that was strongly rooted in reality. Here with Guardians, it's the opposite. The primary focus of the attraction is the Eson storyline but the educational aspect is still there, it just serves as the backdrop. It's a different approach, sure, but it still works in my opinion. It's why I believe, despite how others may feel, this attraction (at least in its current form) is a better fit for EPCOT than it is for Magic Kingdom or Hollywood Studios. Too many people focus on the "why" aspect of it's placement instead of appreciating the fact that the inclusion of these supposedly forced, scientific elements do exactly what they're intended to, even if shoehorned in.

 

[Phicinfan]

Let me start by saying I do actually agree with what you've been saying for the most part, but this is not the best justification as it's merely based on a technicality. That said, both attractions have some element of fantasy (and in this case, it's clear which relies on it more) and, I agree, that's no reason to say this attraction doesn't belong in EPCOT. Fantastical elements have always been a part of EPCOT attractions both new and old to help draw people in. They used real people and locations to tell fictional stories, even if those "stories" were just limited to a single gag or scene. The primary difference between Cosmic Rewind and the pavilions of yesteryear is a matter of where that emphasis on fantasy is placed. In the past, these fantasy elements were used to contribute to a much larger idea or concept that was strongly rooted in reality. Here with Guardians, it's the opposite. The primary focus of the attraction is the Eson storyline but the educational aspect is still there, it just serves as the backdrop. It's a different approach, sure, but it still works in my opinion. It's why I believe, despite how others may feel, this attraction (at least in its current form) is a better fit for EPCOT than it is for Magic Kingdom or Hollywood Studios. Too many people focus on the "why" aspect of it's placement instead of appreciating the fact that the inclusion of these supposedly forced, scientific elements do exactly what they're intended to, even if shoehorned in.

I can agree with that, I have agreed earlier that this ride would to me be a great fit in DHS. I suppose tomorrow land in MK also, but with Tron and Space Mountain a 3rd roller coaster would be a bit much.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I can agree with that, I have agreed earlier that this ride would to me be a great fit in DHS. I suppose tomorrow land in MK also, but with Tron and Space Mountain a 3rd roller coaster would be a bit much.

That I think is where the crux of the argument lies. I understand your point and taking the theme more expansively. And, it lets you put large attractions they think will be popular wherever you want with just a small tweak. On the other side, if it could easily be copied into DHS or TL as is, then it doesn't fit Epcot. Because, the parks and their lands should have unique themes and stories. So, with a few exceptions, copying a ride as is from one land to another SHOULDN'T make sense in a Disney park. That would be "something Universal or Six Flags would do." Not to say attractions can't be copied, but they have to be adjusted (like Pirates - where the original in it's full form wouldn't really fit Adventureland in MK, so they adjusted it. Same with Tower, Soarin' (Cali film, notwithstanding), etc.) That's what made Disney Disney in the parks sense. And, that's why so many of the recent moves feel lazy.

It's a lot like costumes. If they started using the same costumes for Cosmic Rewind, Star Tours, Galaxy's Edge and Space Mountain with slight color variations, I think people would rightfully say that doesn't work very well. Or if every resort front desk agent wears a polo and khakis with a different Disney character that loosely fits the hotel. Some would really like it and/or praise the efficiency because it's a business. But, it would lessen the overall place setting.

(Ironically, original Epcot could actually get away with it in WS and Future World because there was such a strong overarching theme to the park. Think the flag shirts. But, less wo now given the weird segmentation they are trying to implement now.)

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

No. I didn't say that. I now minimize my time there and did not renew an Annual Pass. I have been on property within the last 60 days. (I even saw one of our forum members!)

I understand what you are saying, but that's not me. I was more addressing the people who say we complain but still go and spend the time and money at WDW like we always have. I visit parks here in town quite often, but no longer WDW. I was finally pushed too far within the last two years and put my money where my mouth is. That's my point.

And, despite that, the argument isn't that the ride is terrible. It's that the story is terrible and doesn't fit. That can be criticized by anyone.

Um, that is what you posted. You said, "I am one who has stopped going."

If that isn't what you meant to write, so be it.

 

[FigmentFan82]

I’m not sure how you can read that quote as anything but “despite all the science we like to put in here, it’s ultimately fantasy”.

For all the science it’s grounded in, it’s not enough to take it out of the Science Fantasy realm and put it properly into Science Fiction. If that weren’t the case he would have just said it’s Science Fiction, which he categorically didn’t.

And yet the end of his quote which you keep leaving out he essentially says despite pushing the fantastical-ness he attempts to ground it all in as much real science as possible.

You keep rewording it to make your point by placing the last part first. Instead the final statement is "we ground it as much in science as we can"

 

[UNCgolf]

And yet the end of his quote which you keep leaving out he essentially says despite pushing the fantastical-ness he attempts to ground it all in as much real science as possible.

You keep rewording it to make your point by placing the last part first. Instead the final statement is "we ground it as much in science as we can"

But go on, keep re-wording what he said

As I said above, even when trying to ground it in science, there's still plenty in the Guardians movies that's essentially magic -- like the Power Stone and Ego the Living Planet, who is a planet but also able to walk around as a human (or other species) while simultaneously existing as a planet.

I don't think many people would classify them as science fiction.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

And yet the end of his quote which you keep leaving out he essentially says despite pushing the fantastical-ness he attempts to ground it all in as much real science as possible.

You keep rewording it to make your point by placing the last part first. Instead the final statement is "we ground it as much in science as we can"

But go on, keep re-wording what he said

I've literally used the word "grounded" multiple times, referring directly to the end of his quote you're accusing me of leaving out. I am not leaving it out, I'm just actually understanding it.

He literally says "They are science fantasy more than science fiction" - the "but" that follows qualifies that he tries to add as much science to the fantasy as he can. It does not negate the idea that it is more science fantasy than science fiction, it is there to affirm that he tries to make the science fantasy as science-fiction-y as possible, despite still being science fantasy.

Saying "we ground it as much in science as we can" doesn't make it science fiction.

 

[mergatroid]

I wonder where a purple dragon called Figment lies, science fiction or science fantasy?

And yes I'm aware it's representative of your imagination but if people are analyzing the minutia of everything surely using a magical beast to even represent a figment of your imagination is somewhere in the realms of fantasy. I've actually been interested in this recent debate though, some nice give and take by several posters and some good arguments made on both sides.

 

[James Alucobond]

I wonder where a purple dragon called Figment lies, science fiction or science fantasy?

And yes I'm aware it's representative of your imagination but if people are analyzing the minutia of everything surely using a magical beast to even represent a figment of your imagination is somewhere in the realms of fantasy. I've actually been interested in this recent debate though, some nice give and take by several posters and some good arguments made on both sides.

The problem isn’t including fantastical elements. It’s that fantasy and magic should be used to frame educational experiences and inspire guests to learn more. Cosmic Rewind is almost an exact inversion of the standard pavilion paradigm. Education is the window dressing presented as factoids in the Galaxarium, and the fun happens when the education relents to allow you to consume more MCU media. The whole premise is basically that it’s a fake pavilion with a ride completely divorced from the philosophy of the park. It shouldn’t be the Wonders of Xandar. It should be the Wonders of the Galaxy presented by Xandar, and the ride itself should awe guests with imagery of the Big Bang rather than chase a giant space alien from the latest Marvel movie.

tl;dr: Fantasy can be the framing device, but education and real-world inspiration should be the point. Here, education is the framing device and fantasy is the point.

 

[Professortango1]

The problem isn’t including fantastical elements. It’s that fantasy and magic should be used to frame educational experiences and inspire guests to learn more. Cosmic Rewind is almost an exact inversion of the standard pavilion paradigm. Education is the window dressing presented as factoids in the Galaxarium, and the fun happens when the education relents to allow you to consume more MCU media. The whole premise is basically that it’s a fake pavilion with a ride completely divorced from the philosophy of the park. It shouldn’t be the Wonders of Xandar. It should be the Wonders of the Galaxy presented by Xandar, and the ride itself should awe guests with imagery of the Big Bang rather than chase a giant space alien from the latest Marvel movie.

tl;dr: Fantasy can be the framing device, but education and real-world inspiration should be the point. Here, education is the framing device and fantasy is the point.

They looked at the MIB ride and went "yeah....let's just do that. It fits Epcot then, right???" Which is funny because I feel like Mission BO in California was them looking at Transformers: The Ride and thinking they could do that with TOT. Whenever Disney tries to get into Universal's lane, it ends badly. We see it with the new Toontown going after Super Nintendo World, with Galaxy's Edge going after Wizarding World, and with these "ride the movies" style attractions they are coming out with now. They need to go back and look at the original Star Tours and IJA and see what made those work and understand it instead of just copy and pasting elements.