-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind SPOILER Thread
- Thread starter Surferboy567
- Start date
Whoa! That's over $1 a foot on Amazon.
I'm starting to come around with this, and the fact the black screens could have been next to pink backgrounds. This ride is better and better.
Similar feeling!! I would say this is even much more impressive.
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
Some people make extensive use of the Ignore button. Their lack of answers could be as simple as that. Don't take it personally.I see you've ignored my questions Joe, why is that? Also only yesterday I posted that this ride would fit better in a different park myself, but don't let that stop you from implying I think that it fits great in Epcot?
Have you ridden this ride Joe, you said you don't visit the parks anymore recently and yet you're judging an attraction that you've not experienced? I'm also intrigued with your post saying
Please explain what this means, it's a double negative? Without an explanation it makes it look like you're a bit mixed up when using English as it makes little to no sense? Anyway Joe, keep jingling those keys (whilst your dog looks on thinking "Not this again, what the ......") and abusing people who visit the Galactic Starcruiser hey? If I didn't know any better I'd think you were bitter that people were loving this ride and you feel like that's too much to cope with?
Peace
Wheeeeeeeeeee, spinny rides go zoom
The Rock N' Roll thing is a reference to Star Lord's line from the leaked onride video, where he says "No one's gonna stop Rock N' Roll from existing!" - the poster just misquoted it.
Quinnmac000
Well-Known Member
The ride looks like a lot of fun which is good! Most of us go to theme parks to escape the mudane and everyday and enjoy themselves.
That being said, the price to create this ride does not equal the level of fun I think I will get out of this ride. That budget and price gets passed on to us and I don't think it was a good investment based on what I've seen so far....but maybe will change once I ride it.
The music rights probably costed the company a bit as well as the actors fee.
That being said, the price to create this ride does not equal the level of fun I think I will get out of this ride. That budget and price gets passed on to us and I don't think it was a good investment based on what I've seen so far....but maybe will change once I ride it.
The music rights probably costed the company a bit as well as the actors fee.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
For reference, since I don't think it's been stated before, this attraction cost more than it cost to produce the first two Guardians of the Galaxy Movies.
Combined.
scuttlebud
Active Member
Maybe we can have a thread just for folks to argue about how much this cost?
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
I'm a little confused here. I think the ride will be a lot of fun, generally well done, and will improve EPCOT's lineup. But... I don't think that was ever in real doubt. Coasters are fun, GotG is fun. Frankly, Disney could have built a naked "outdoor" coaster with a GotG soundtrack and it would be the most "fun" ride on that side of the park. But the degree to which some people are using that as an excuse to dismiss the actual issues with the ride - and also that the optimists were wrong about a lot of these issues - is still relevant.
We've discussed the AA issue. We were assured by optimists for years that of course, it would feature AAs. It doesn't.
The relevance. We all, myself included, thought they'd at least make some gesture towards edutainment. They haven't. Believing they wouldn't has been a fringe position on here.
The redundancy. Folks were concerned that this would be excessively similar to existing attractions. The fact that the most common description by riders is SM meets RnR proves that it is. I think there was a belief that something - maybe AAs? - would distinguish this from Tron, opening in the same period. Nope. The pair are absurdly similar.
The cost. This isn't unimportant. It will impact what other rides we get - it already has, and will do so for many, many years. It's hugely relevant to WDW fans.
Again, this will be a really enjoyable ride. Some of the naysayers in this thread are being comically hyperbolic. But so are some of the boosters. Pretty much every criticism of this ride has been confirmed as correct, but they're being dismissed because it's fun, which was never really in dispute. Just as this thread has examples of the unnecessarily grumpy, there are also examples of posters being distracted by the shiny new toy and trying to use that distraction to shut up critics.
We've discussed the AA issue. We were assured by optimists for years that of course, it would feature AAs. It doesn't.
The relevance. We all, myself included, thought they'd at least make some gesture towards edutainment. They haven't. Believing they wouldn't has been a fringe position on here.
The redundancy. Folks were concerned that this would be excessively similar to existing attractions. The fact that the most common description by riders is SM meets RnR proves that it is. I think there was a belief that something - maybe AAs? - would distinguish this from Tron, opening in the same period. Nope. The pair are absurdly similar.
The cost. This isn't unimportant. It will impact what other rides we get - it already has, and will do so for many, many years. It's hugely relevant to WDW fans.
Again, this will be a really enjoyable ride. Some of the naysayers in this thread are being comically hyperbolic. But so are some of the boosters. Pretty much every criticism of this ride has been confirmed as correct, but they're being dismissed because it's fun, which was never really in dispute. Just as this thread has examples of the unnecessarily grumpy, there are also examples of posters being distracted by the shiny new toy and trying to use that distraction to shut up critics.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
I agree, especially when it comes to the cost situation. People like to try to wave it away as an "out of sight, out of mind" deal since most guests don't go hunting for individual attraction budgets, but the truth is that the money is real and it comes from somewhere - the guests.
This is the most expensive single attraction ever built on Walt Disney World Property and it's not especially close - it cost about as much as all of Future World did on opening day. More than half as expensive as all of Animal Kingdom on opening day. For this amount of money you could build 4 and a half Expedition Everests. You could build 5 and a half Splash Mountains. But instead of 4-5 new E-Tickets we're getting 1 - and if anyone were ready to justify that by saying it's at least going to feature every trick in Disney's bag, we already know it features rather few of them. Fun though it may be despite that. It's not like Animatronics would have made it less fun.
TRON's costs seem to have ballooned to similar proportions . . . are we really so ready to accept Disney building 2 E-Tickets for the price of 10 instead of actually building 10 E-Tickets? So what if most people don't know that - WE know that. Why would we let it slide? Think of the state Walt Disney World would be in with 10 more E-Tickets across the 4 parks. Goodness. It'd be a whole different resort.
But instead we settle for 2 hideously expensive attractions that still somehow manage to cut their intended animatronics from the budget. Why? We can enjoy it for what it is, sure . . . but giving Disney an absolute pass on this enables them to do more of the same as time goes on. Meanwhile they'll continue raising prices and lowering service. We should speak up if we want things to get better.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
Yup. The question shouldn't be "is this fun?" It should be, "is this four times more fun then Splash Mountain?" Putting aside the controversial elements of Splash, I can't really imagine many folks answering "yes" to that.
Speaking personally, as much fun as I expect GotG to be, I'd take one original Imagination ride - or even three Fantasyland-level dark rides - over it any day of the week.
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
That's like saying that $100,000 plus Audi RS7 has to be four times more fun than my $30,000 VW GTI.
Is it (the Audi) four times more fun?
What's four times the fun anyway? Who can measure that?
Would I feel four times the quality in the Audi vs the VW.
Sure it's in the engineering, and R&D, and in many of the places the driver doesn't see - aluminum components, esp. suspension... But does it feel four times more fun?
People don't exit a ride with the cost quotient of that ride relative to the other rides they've ridden.
They don't then do a build cost (that they weren't involved in) vs enjoyment relative to other ride analysis in their heads.
I'd feel sorry for people doing that.
What they are doing during their trip and after their trip is evaluating how good of a time they are having or had, and some of that is relative to the amount of money they spent.
Not what these things cost Disney to build.
mergatroid
Well-Known Member
When you say they're absurdly similar, isn't that over simplifying things? Aren't Velocicoaster, Hulk and Rip Ride Rocket 'all the same'? It's similar to saying that all Omnimovers are the same or that an Attraction that has no AA's is somehow incapable of satisfying guests. Those things perhaps are specific to you to enjoy them, that's fine but you're almost trying to say that those who've experienced it and used words like 'phenomenal', 'mind blowing', 'great' or the one you obsess over 'fun' should somehow not be taken seriously as they've not addressed the 'edutainment' aspect.
I'm only going over the testimonials of those who've ridden it, however only a few have said it's 'meh' or similar. If this ride is a failure due to lack of 'edutainment', then it's a huge failure. If it's a 'success' because people love riding it and wanting to ride it again, then it's a huge success. If Epcot still only had 'edutainment' and this was the first ride there to break the mould so to speak, then you'd have more of a point. However it's not and so this 'surprise' that it's not really isn't that surprising. That's not really a Guardians issue though, that's more an Epcot issue that's existed for a while.
It seems like you don't like the fact that Epcot is no longer the park it was which is a perfectly valid argument. I understand this viewpoint to quite a degree however whether Cosmic Rewind was ever going to be 100% 'edutainment' or 0% 'edutainment', wouldn't change the fact that Epcot isn't what it was. We can happily debate that issue all day and we'll agree and disagree over certain aspects of that like anything. It does seem like you're trying to base your perspective on this ride purely from what you wanted, rather than what will make the majority happy though. Had they stuck some AA's in it would that really make a difference all that much to you? Does having AA's in Journey make that a great ride, was Stitch at the MK a must see because of it's AA?
I admit I may be being a bit overly optimistic after reading reviews of this attraction and watching footage of it, I'll accept that as I've not ridden it. Some on here seem overly negative about it and a minority have even changed the goal posts completely since the positive reviews have come out, I think it's safe to say that also.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
First, the most egregious element of this post - it is wildly disingenuous to pretend omnimovers are similar in the same way that the dark-box coasters are similar. The variety in omnis depends on what guests see - the tone, the subject, the style, the infinite number of individual artistic choices. Saying Omnis are all alike is as silly as saying every movie ever made is similar. SM, Tron, and GotG are all futuristically themed coasters in the dark with some projection effects. RnRC is the same, minus the "futuristic" element. Three of those are launch coasters. Three (Tron is the exception) have a slightly humorous, whimsical tone. They are similiar not just in physical experience (which is a much more significant similarity then in an Omni, which does not emphasize physicality) but in genre, visuals and (to a lesser extent) tone. Tron was conceived as interchangeable with SM and built at WDW in a panic.
Again, a caveat you continually ignore - I think this will be a strong ride. But the people we have heard from have a huge bias towards positivity. You never trust early word from film screenings at face value, and that is even more true here. You need to read the reviews critically. But a large body of guests "loving" riding an attraction does not make it a success for anyone other then the bean counters at WDW, who I don't really care about. One of the most widely enjoyed rides at WDW is TSMM, and I'd argue that on every other, meaningful level on which a ride could be judged, it's absolute garbage. I can almost guarantee you that if you plopped Velocicoaster into EPCOT more people would enjoy that then would enjoy SSE. That would not make Velo a better ride, or an appropriate ride for EPCOT.
The issue isn't that EPCOT isn't the park it was, its that it has absolutely no unifying principle at all and that this centerless mishmash is exacerbated significantly by GOTG.
And yes, the AA in Stitch made that attraction better then if he had been a projection effect. That seems really obvious.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
They probably notice how much costs have skyrocketed, or that one ridiculously expensive ride has prevented several other great rides from being built.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
I think your claim is what is absurd. Of course people are going to compare the ride to whatever else is "closest" in experience - that's how we work as human beings in order to provide context. What other Disney rides would you expect riders to compare this to? IASW? Living with the Land? Yeah, the ride is more similar to Space Mountain and RNR than any other rides at WDW. That tells us very little, other than those are the easiest things to compare to, not that this ride is really all that similar to them.
Is there a rollercoaster that turns vehicles at WDW that people can cite for comparison? People have talked about that element and how the video is dramatic and encompassing without referring to other rides because there aren't comparisons at WDW.
I'm not speaking to how good this ride is, I haven't been on it and cannot say. But if all you do is focus on common elements, any ride can be "basically the same" as another in the same class of ride. It's a disingenuous argument.
Last edited:
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Yep!
Unlikely. And who says this prevented other great rides from being built? You expect all other great rides to be built cheaper all of a sudden than what their current spending suggests?
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
No. What's disingenuous is this claim that SM, Tron, RnRC, and GotG aren't very, very similar. Two of them were conceived of as interchangeable. It is as though Disney built a new, light-hearted Omni starring a cast of "1000 goofy ghouls" called the Spooky Estate. Yes, people reach for familiar experiences to describe new ones. But how many early reviews of RotR said "it's like MMRR crossed with Star Tours" or "It's Ratatouille on steroids?" I suspect close to none, because those rides aren't that similar to RotR. Nothing is.
The claim that, whether or not one was excited for GotG, it was still very similar to several existing rides has not been particularly controversial on these boards. It's becoming so now because as the ride's opening approaches, boosterism (and grumpiness) are skyrocketing, and even once largely uncontroversial statements have to be attacked if they're at all critical.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
The issue with GotG is part of a much larger one - WDW cannot keep costs at a reasonable level. So criticism of the cost implies criticism of the generally inflated prices of WDW rides. If Disney was able to control those costs, then yes, you could get a lot more strong rides for the same level of investment.