Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind SPOILER Thread

No Name

Well-Known Member
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.
I do think if they were to get their costs down, it would lead to slightly more investment in the parks on a broader scale, only because they’d see better ROI. But yeah to your point it’s not like the money saved on a specific attraction would be spent elsewhere.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
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.
I think there's a balance here. It's unlikely that Disney would invest the excess $300 million in new rides and upkeep - but I think it's plausible that they might invest $100 or $150 million of it. What we can say with certainty after GotG is that they WERE willing, under certain circumstances, to invest $450 million in upgrades to the park.
 

No Name

Well-Known Member
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.
Im not a big Fast and Furious fan but as someone who thinks No Way Home should’ve won Best Picture, I’m not sure we’re even close to agreement. Different works of art strive for different things but I don’t think that makes them any of them inherently superior or inferior, rather, they should be judged on how well they achieve what they’re aiming for.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Im not a big Fast and Furious fan but as someone who thinks No Way Home should’ve won Best Picture, I’m not sure we’re even close to agreement. Different works of art strive for different things but I don’t think that makes them any of them inherently superior or inferior, rather, they should be judged on how well they achieve what they’re aiming for.
Yeah. When movies were brought up, it may me think about how people are often way too dismissive of "popular" films as often not having artistic merit. And ironically bringing this back to this specific ride, I would argue that the MCU films are fantastic works of art, with detailed crafting and a lot care and emotion. Many film "snobs" might say they are ruining cinema and that all the MCU films are all similar and cut from the same cloth; it actual reminds of the same debate about how all roller coasts are the same and don't deserve to be spoken about in the same terms as themed dark rides. And in fact, I think James Gunn himself gave a great response to those who criticize popular movies:

I didn't really find the Jack Black superhero jokes offensive, did you guys? It was, like, a joke. I'm not sure if you guys noticed, but the writing on the Oscars didn't seem to be all that well thought out.
As far as Dan Gilroy saying that attendees of the Independent Spirit Awards have survived against a "tsunami of superhero films" - well it seems a bit weird coming from a guy whose wife has acted in two Thor films - really, that seems like you've drowned horribly in that tsunami. But I know I just kind of make up stuff as I go along on these awards shows, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Whatever the case, the truth is, popular fare in any medium has always been snubbed by the self-appointed elite. I've already won more awards than I ever expected for Guardians. What bothers me slightly is that many people assume because you make big films that you put less love, care, and thought into them then people do who make independent films or who make what are considered more serious Hollywood films.
I've made B-movies, independent films, children's movies, horror films, and gigantic spectacles. I find there are plenty of people everywhere making movies for a buck or to feed their own vanity. And then there are people who do what they do because they love story-telling, they love cinema, and they want to add back to the world some of the same magic they've taken from the works of others. In all honesty, I do no find a strikingly different percentage of those with integrity and those without working within any of these fields of film.
If you think people who make superhero movies are dumb, come out and say we're dumb. But if you, as an independent filmmaker or a "serious" filmmaker, think you put more love into your characters than the Russo Brothers do Captain America, or Joss Whedon does the Hulk, or I do a talking raccoon, you are simply mistaken.

(The irony being I'm not really much of a roller coaster fan compared to other rides, but I can at least recognize elements that make them distinct unique experiences and why many people enjoy them.)
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Im not a big Fast and Furious fan but as someone who thinks No Way Home should’ve won Best Picture, I’m not sure we’re even close to agreement. Different works of art strive for different things but I don’t think that makes them any of them inherently superior or inferior, rather, they should be judged on how well they achieve what they’re aiming for.
I have a very broad definition of art, and I absolutely reject the idea that art produced for profit or by a corporation is inherently inferior to art that more closely conforms to the traditional Romantic ideal of individual expression. That's how I can consider theme parks art. I also think No Way Home was very good and should've been nominated for an Oscar.

Whether a work of art achieves what it aims to accomplish IS one way to evaluate it. It is not the only way, however, or even the most useful way - again Fast and Furious 9 absolutely achieves its own goals, but that doesn't make it superior in every respect to a more ambitious film that sets its goals higher but doesn't quite reach them. A naked coaster can achieve its goal - to be a fun physical experience - perfectly. I don't think that makes it the equal of something like SSE, which had much loftier, more culturally significant goals and demonstrated a broader range of artistic achievement - even though I think the descent portion of the ride has never really worked and the attraction as a whole thus falls somewhat short of its goals.

The truth is that we can all define certain situations in which "greater enjoyment by more people" doesn't equal better. We all agree the plans to stick a coaster in SSE would have been disastrous. But... there's quite a strong chance it would have increased guest satisfaction scores.
 
Last edited:

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Yeah. When movies were brought up, it may me think about how people are often way too dismissive of "popular" films as often not having artistic merit. And ironically bringing this back to this specific ride, I would argue that the MCU films are fantastic works of art, with detailed crafting and a lot care and emotion. Many film "snobs" might say they are ruining cinema and that all the MCU films are all similar and cut from the same cloth; it actual reminds of the same debate about how all roller coasts are the same and don't deserve to be spoken about in the same terms as themed dark rides. And in fact, I think James Gunn himself gave a great response to those who criticize popular movies:



(The irony being I'm not really much of a roller coaster fan compared to other rides, but I can at least recognize elements that make them distinct unique experiences and why many people enjoy them.)
I agree with everything you say completely - right up until you make the jump to likening the contrast between popcorn and arthouse cinema to that between coasters and dark rides. That rhetorical leap strikes me as absurd. "Snobs" reject popcorn cinema largely because it doesn't conform to the traditional Romantic ideal of individual expression. This is also why they reject seriously considering theme parks as a whole. Considering theme parks as art absolutely means using expertise to make distinctions between good and bad rides that go far deeper then average enjoyment levels. That's exactly what you're doing when you argue in favor of the "crafting" and "emotion" of MCU films - bringing serious artistic consideration to something snobs dismiss (and I agree with you 100%). In fact, harping on enjoyment as the only meaningful metric is what a snob who discounts theme parks as art would do, since it dismisses the idea that theme park attractions COULD have deeper aesthetic, historic, and ideological reasons.

Besides, no one is dismissing coasters in general. BTM, Hagrids - those are truly great rides on multiple levels. GotG looks like it could be great as well. What I said in this thread this morning, however, is that that doesn't invalidate the criticisms of the ride, many of which have been proven correct as the ride nears opening but are being angrily dismissed by boosters.
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
We’re theme park enthusiasts. Most of us, anyway. We buy things on eBay that were once given away for free. Animation cels that were once trashed now fetch many thousands of dollars. Pulp novels and short stories, which were sold on a per page basis to scribes churning out content like so many monkeys pecking away at infinite typewriters, is a genre that gave birth to some of our most compelling contemporary storytelling. Sometimes art takes a bit of distance to be appreciated past it’s time.

I say all this because many of our favorite attractions were in dire need of TLC over time, or had outlived their relevance, and were torn down to make way for something else newer or shinier. As much as I love my old school dark rides, not sure how viable an entire park full of Carousels of Progress* would hold up today.

*which I ride each time I’m in the MK
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
It's far off topic now, but I'm surprised to see two people say No Way Home should have been nominated for Best Picture!

It was a fun film, but I think a significant portion of the appeal was the context (bringing back Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, and some of their villains). I don't think the film was anything especially great on its own. I haven't been overly impressed with any of the MCU Spider-Man films, actually, and although I think this was the best one it's not even in the top 5 MCU films for me.
 
Last edited:

Surferboy567

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Haven’t seen this posted but the sign outside the attraction reads:

“Be aware that you will be transported to a Nova cruiser orbiting Terra for a demonstration which will consist of thrilling high-speed turbulent - what you Terrans would call a “roller coaster-type ride” that goes forward and backward though the dark. It includes sharp turns, sudden drops, and stops”.

Maybe that wow moment is the “transport to a Nova cruiser”.

Source:
 

No Name

Well-Known Member
“Be aware that you will be transported to a Nova cruiser orbiting Terra for a demonstration which will consist of thrilling high-speed turbulent - what you Terrans would call a “roller coaster-type ride” that goes forward and backward though the dark. It includes sharp turns, sudden drops, and stops”.
This is the worst warning sign ever and I both love and hate it.
 

Dis1945

Member
Haven’t seen this posted but the sign outside the attraction reads:

“Be aware that you will be transported to a Nova cruiser orbiting Terra for a demonstration which will consist of thrilling high-speed turbulent - what you Terrans would call a “roller coaster-type ride” that goes forward and backward though the dark. It includes sharp turns, sudden drops, and stops”.

Maybe that wow moment is the “transport to a Nova cruiser”.

Source:

yes, this is the wow moment. There is another disney ride that pulls off almost the exact same effect, but this is more seamless bigger scale, and more of an impossible disbelief because there is no evidence of how they did it. Very well hidden.
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
Haven’t seen this posted but the sign outside the attraction reads:

“Be aware that you will be transported to a Nova cruiser orbiting Terra for a demonstration which will consist of thrilling high-speed turbulent - what you Terrans would call a “roller coaster-type ride” that goes forward and backward though the dark. It includes sharp turns, sudden drops, and stops”.
Not to be whiny, but that first sentence is really incorrectly constructed. There should be em dashes on either side of whatever it was they meant to say parenthetically, but they awkwardly never circle back to whatever noun was supposed to follow "turbulent".
 

Surferboy567

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
yes, this is the wow moment. There is another disney ride that pulls off almost the exact same effect, but this is more seamless bigger scale, and more of an impossible disbelief because there is no evidence of how they did it. Very well hidden.
Is that how you go from EPCOT’s pavilion to being with the Guardians?

Any other details you can tell us?
 

No Name

Well-Known Member
Not to be whiny, but that first sentence is really incorrectly constructed. There should be em dashes on either side of whatever it was they meant to say parenthetically, but they awkwardly never circle back to whatever noun was supposed to follow "turbulent".
The sign should also just read “Be aware that this is a thrilling, high-speed, turbulent roller coaster that goes forward and backwards through the dark. It includes sharp turns, sudden drops, and stops.”

The fake stuff about transporting and orbiting and demonstrations and Terrans and whatnot makes this rude, confusing, or at best, inconvenient, for people with real health conditions. It’s an odd level of commitment to storytelling for the exterior of a ride that has a giant unthemed show building visible.
 

Rescue Ranger

Well-Known Member
I'm surprised Epcot still has full availability for the 27th!

I'll be there that week(leaving 29th) but didn't reserve that day. I'm not a big fan of the movies but that doesn't mean I wouldn't love a great new attraction.....worth it to go opening day or will it be chaos? Undecided on if I should change my plans and visit Epcot on the 27th and then hop to Studios after?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom