Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind SPOILER Thread

[mergatroid]

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.

I thought you'd say that, that's why I asked it. Tron, SM and GOTG are different rides to most. The feel, the speed, the audio and the whole experience is different. I put omnimovers in there to make the point that anything can be over simplified if that's what you want to do. I've not ignored the fact you've said it will be a 'fun ride', let's address that. You continually use the fact that it's described as a 'fun ride' to criticise it, like a backhanded compliment as you then go on to say that 'fun' isn't what you want.

That's your view and that's fine, but if many people enjoy this ride then it's an addition to a park that long ago changed from how you want it. Oh and I before you say I've not addressed all your points, you didn't mine

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

When you realize Cosmic Rewind is the Project Gemini Time Racer's coaster moved to a different Pavillion.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I thought you'd say that, that's why I asked it. Tron, SM and GOTG are different rides to most. The feel, the speed, the audio and the whole experience is different. I put omnimovers in there to make the point that anything can be over simplified if that's what you want to do. I've not ignored the fact you've said it will be a 'fun ride', let's address that. You continually use the fact that it's described as a 'fun ride' to criticise it, like a backhanded compliment as you then go on to say that 'fun' isn't what you want.

That's your view and that's fine, but many if many people enjoy this ride then it's an addition to a park that long ago changed from how you want it. Oh and I before you say I've not addressed all your points, you didn't mine

And I made the false claim that "all movies are the same" to show you how absurd your contention that "anything can be simplified" is a meaningful response to claims that the WDW coasters-in-the-dark are similar is. Saying, "this orange and this tangerine are very similar," cannot be countered by saying, "yeah, well I can say this horse and this airplane are very similar, so saying things are similar is invalid."

I've used "fun" in good faith in many places, to describe my personal anticipation for the ride. I think you assume it was backhanded because you tend to group some posters into a "unfairly negative" category in order to dismiss their criticism. I expect GotG to be more then fun. You've used the term a fair bit yourself, I believe. My point is that, unless you want a park full of naked coasters, "fun" isn't the be-all-and-end-all of attraction criticism.

 

[No Name]

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.

This is so grossly elitist. Guests aren’t dumb shmucks and you aren’t the wise being who knows better. If a large body of them love riding an attraction then it’s probably absolutely a success. If you don’t like TSMM then that’s just your opinion and that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean the ride is garbage on some objective level, and in fact its popularity would prove exactly the opposite.

 

[doctornick]

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 actually seems insane to me that anyone would suggest that any of those rides are really all that similar.

The fact that Tron was built instead of Space in Shanghai doesn't really mean they are similar, only that they decided to do a different thing in terms of the main thrill ride in Tomorrowland there. They are actually quite reasonable to be built next to other in MK given how different experiences they are.

 

[Tha Realest]

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.

Casper's fully capable of defending himself, so I'm not stepping in to do so.

I think the $$ per fun metric is the wrong one, and not necessarily what he was getting at. As a father of a few kids approaching teenage years all at once, I think dropping $100k now on an Audi means we won't have money set aside for when they invariably need their own cars.

I think his larger point was the massive investment was a time and money suck that took away from concurrent projects, and, if this is an expectation going forward, makes future investment a much tougher pill to swallow. It's not just what did $400/$450 Million get us for this one ride, it's that we better enjoy it, because there's not much money left over for much else going forward.

 

[khlaylav]

Comparing RnRC to the other indoor coasters is fairly disingenuous, honestly. Yes, it's an indoor coaster with "whimsical elements" or whatever, but the intended thrill is on an entire different level because of the launch and the inversions. It's also at the peak of height requirement in terms of Disney at 48 inches, only equaled by Primeval Whirl and a few slides. Tron will, by brief research, equal that height requirement and is probably the best comparison, but the level of intended thrill with it and, say, Guardians, are worlds apart.

 

[mergatroid]

Casper's fully capable of defending himself, so I'm not stepping in to do so.

I think the $$ per fun metric is the wrong one, and not necessarily what he was getting at. As a father of a few kids approaching teenage years all at once, I think dropping $100k now on an Audi means we won't have money set aside for when they invariably need their own cars.

I think his larger point was the massive investment was a time and money suck that took away from concurrent projects, and, if this is an expectation going forward, makes future investment a much tougher pill to swallow. It's not just what did $400/$450 Million get us for this one ride, it's that we better enjoy it, because there's not much money left over for much else going forward.

Yet he clearly says

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.

He's clearly saying you have to ask "is this four times more fun than Splash Mountain" and that he can't see folks answering yes to it. Whilst he may also think it effects money going forward, his post clearly just demands a $$ per fund metric and does so specifically? It's the exact point he's getting at.

 

[Casper Gutman]

This is so grossly elitist. Guests aren’t dumb shmucks and you aren’t the wise being who knows better. If a large body of them love riding an attraction then it’s probably absolutely a success. If you don’t like TSMM then that’s just your opinion and that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean the ride is garbage on some objective level, and in fact its popularity would prove exactly the opposite.

I think theme parks are works of art, as much as film or literature or comics or music. If you don't agree, then yeah, the amount of fun they produce is the only meaningful metric. That's a great recipe, as I said, for a park full of naked coasters. If they're art, then they can be evaluated on a number of different levels. That doesn't mean that personal, subjective enjoyment is valueless. It just means there are other ways to evaluate theme parks and their contents. And yes, I do consider the people on this board - including both you and me - to be more able to meaningfully evaluate theme parks. There is a lot of expertise on here, knowledge about the history, aesthetics, ideology, corporate structure, and other key elements of understanding and evaluating theme parks. Its why this is the only social media site with which I engage.

I think your accusations of elitism here is evidence of a kneejerk assumption that theme parks are not art. If I said, "yeah, I understand that Fast and Furious 9 is enjoyable - I really enjoy it too - but its relatively without merit when meaningfully considered against something like Citizen Kane or The Rules of the Game," I think you'd react differently, because we've broadly agreed to accept that there are ways to evaluate art that stretch beyond and reveal more profound significance then simple enjoyment. Because we've agreed films are art.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Yet he clearly says


He's clearly saying you have to ask "is this four times more fun than Splash Mountain" and that he can't see folks answering yes to it. Whilst he may also think it effects money going forward, his post clearly just demands a $$ per fund metric and does so specifically? It's the exact point he's getting at.

I apologize for being glib. I was reacting to the constant refrain of, "if it's fun, who cares what it costs!" with a response I felt demonstrated the absurdity of that stance. I clarified, several posts above yours (actually, in a couple different posts), that the larger, more significant issue is Disney's inability to control costs directly impacting ticket prices and Disney's ability to build an adequate number of new rides and refresh old ones, much as OG explained.

 

[Giss Neric]

I'm riding again on Saturday & Sunday as part of previews. I hope the rumor that we get to see the pre-show is true!

I just wanna know if Terry Crews brings in the comedic relief.

 

[Tha Realest]

I'm riding again on Saturday & Sunday as part of previews. I hope the rumor that we get to see the pre-show is true!

I'm a ride wimp that recently worked up the courage to do Space, Splash, Matterhorn, BTMRR, and 7DMT. How will I handle this?

 

[trainplane3]

When you realize Cosmic Rewind is the Project Gemini Time Racer's coaster moved to a different Pavillion.

- Launched
- Connected by tunnel
- "Gates" throughout

I somehow wouldn't be surprised if the bones of it inspired this. I'll still stand by how SSE should never ever have a coaster placed inside it and would've been a bad move if it did end up happening.

 

[UNCgolf]

I'll still stand by how SSE should never ever have a coaster placed inside it and would've been a bad move if it did end up happening.

It would have been worse than anything else they've ever done to EPCOT.

 

[DznyGrlSD]

I'm a ride wimp that recently worked up the courage to do Space, Splash, Matterhorn, BTMRR, and 7DMT. How will I handle this?

it's a VERY smooth ride. The backwards launch did make me a skosh nauseous (think Everest)

 

[britain]

It's not just what did $400/$450 Million get us for this one ride, it's that we better enjoy it, because there's not much money left over for much else going forward.

nicely said

 

[britain]

My understanding is that Time Racers was going to be more of a self-driven coaster (DL's Rocket Rods), so while it might have had a fast launch, it could also have slowed down for show scenes.

 

[Tha Realest]

it's a VERY smooth ride. The backwards launch did make me a skosh nauseous (think Everest)

Thanks. I haven't done Everest yet, but heard it's not *that* bad.

 

[doctornick]

I think his larger point was the massive investment was a time and money suck that took away from concurrent projects, and, if this is an expectation going forward, makes future investment a much tougher pill to swallow. It's not just what did $400/$450 Million get us for this one ride, it's that we better enjoy it, because there's not much money left over for much else going forward.

Cynically, it feels like if this costed "only" $100M to built, that wouldn't mean money for other attractions at WDW, but would just be $300M more positive on the TWDC balance sheet or extra money to spend on Disney+. It's nice to believe that Disney would spend more money on the parks if costs were under better control, but I would be skeptical.

 

[Tha Realest]

Cynically, it feels like if this costed "only" $100M to built, that wouldn't mean money for other attractions at WDW, but would just be $300M more positive on the TWDC balance sheet or extra money to spend on Disney+. It's nice to believe that Disney would spend more money on the parks if costs were under better control, but I would be skeptical.

Oh I don't believe they'd spend a full $300M elsewhere. I think they spend only what they have to, and those expenditures have to be internally justified to increase attendance or per-visitor spending. That's why so little maintenance or general sprucing up appears to be happening. There is not a financial incentive to do so.

My point is that when the baseline costs for a new attraction start to level out at prices approaching the half-billion mark, that's a systemic problem. Think of the things Imagineers have to do to justify an attraction before its greenlit? Has to be tied into a popular IP (to justify the investment, needs to support ongoing TV shows/movies, or general brand awareness). Has to generate a steady and justifiable flow of merchandise sales. Has to be a "home run" each and every time, the sort of thing that boosts attendance. Has to be the sort of attraction that warrants people spending upwards of $15/$20 on an ILL.