Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind SPOILER Thread

[Jrb1979]

Sounds like a personal opinion that you have there. I would disagree with a lot of what your saying but thats okay.
Hagrids is a nicely themed coaster, but you are getting a little willy nilly as far as how well themed it is.
I personally would put most of the coasters that you mentioned ahead of Hagrids imo.

I would put Velicoaster and Hagrids over all Disney coasters. Theme is my number 1 thing for a dark ride. For a coaster, thrill and physical feel of the ride is more important. IMO I don't think you can tell that good of a story with a coaster unless you slow it down. At that point might as well make it like Gringotts.

 

[BrianLo]

The difference is that AA-laden boat rides have more latitude for significant variation in both concept and execution than a "coaster in a box" does. At least as evidenced by an attraction like Cosmic Rewind, which can fairly be described as featuring more similarities to Space Mountain than differences.

Compare that to something like Pirates of the Caribbean and Small World, where the similarities basically end at "Indoor boat ride with Animatronics and Set Pieces and an original theme song". You could show someone footage of Cosmic Rewind and they might understandably confuse it for Space Mountain. You'd never confuse Small World for Pirates.

I would mind less Cosmic Rewind being "another coaster in a box" if its aesthetic personality was so totally distinguishable from Space Mountain, but it really isn't. It's strikingly similar, despite being built nearly 50 years later and costing many, many more millions of dollars. The experience should be more distinct than it is.

Yes, that's true, but you've somewhat conveniently picked the polar opposites when considering that argument. There is no reason a coaster couldn't be as diverse as Small World and Pirates. What I was more getting at was Western River Expedition and Pirates. In terms of things that people want broadly. In that case we are talking about two fairly similar experiences in the same park. Even if Epcot built Space Mountain 2.0 (which this isn't per say), I'm not sure if that matters in so far as they are two separate parks.

There seemed less concern with Tron occupying Epcot and that was more overtly built as a Space Mountain replacement.

Particularly when it comes to Epcot, a park somewhat known for a lot of same-y attractions once upon a time. Guardians meaningfully expands the diversity, but it's being down-played that it does not.

I thought Space was once upon a time considered a good attraction? Now Space 2.0 or 3.0 is being thrown around like a bad thing.

 

[Surferboy567]

I would mind less Cosmic Rewind being "another coaster in a box" if its aesthetic personality was so totally distinguishable from Space Mountain, but it really isn't. It's strikingly similar, despite being built nearly 50 years later and costing many, many more millions of dollars. The experience should be more distinct than it is.

I have to disagree with you here. Yes, it is a “coaster in a box” as you describe however, you have to at least admit that the experience is completely distinct.

Just because they are both “coasters in a box” doesn’t mean they are the same.

Guardians has all the conveniences of modern technology, the use of space seems very convincing and the huge screens are completely different then Space Mountain. Guardians has a backwards and (forwards?) launch as well as the rotating vehicles. Guardians also has an extremely immersive queue and story that Space (while I enjoy Space’s queue) doesn’t have. The ride is also uniquely guardians and really has a different feeling bolstered by that soundtrack. I haven’t experienced this attraction for myself yet so I can’t speak to the last point but I get the feeling from people that have ridden it say that it doesn’t “feel” like a normal coaster due to the rotation of the vehicles.

Also, I know it’s been discussed to death here but cost is never a measure of how good an attraction is or if it was “worth” it. At least in my opinion.

If you wanted to compare TRON and Guardians maybe their are more similarities there. I‘m just not seeing it for direct comparisons to Space Mountain beyond them both being space themed ”coaster in a box”.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Yes, that's true, but you've somewhat conveniently picked the polar opposites when considering that argument. There is no reason a coaster couldn't be as diverse as Small World and Pirates. What I was more getting at was Western River Expedition and Pirates. In terms of things that people want broadly. In that case we are talking about two fairly similar experiences in the same park. Even if Epcot built Space Mountain 2.0 (which this isn't per say), I'm not sure if that matters in so far as they are two separate parks.

There seemed less concern with Tron occupying Epcot and that was more overtly built as a Space Mountain replacement.

Particularly when it comes to Epcot, a park somewhat known for a lot of same-y attractions once upon a time. Guardians meaningfully expands the diversity, but it's being down-played that it does not.

I thought Space was once upon a time considered a good attraction? Now Space 2.0 or 3.0 is being thrown around like a bad thing.

I simply picked the first two boat rides that came to mind that happened to be in the same park, illustrating that you can share a ride system in proximity without the rides being accused of being "the same". If you were getting at Pirates and WRE then say that, because there was no way to infer it. But keep in mind, the point with Pirates and WRE was that they were designed to exist exclusively on separate coasts, and one was never actually built largely because the other one was, which makes them somewhat inadmissable to the argument here.

Surely people would speak up if Disney built Phantom Manor at WDW given its many shared elements in The Haunted Mansion. Guests can't ride those attractions in the same trip, though, let alone the same day. But you can bet people will hop parks and catch Cosmic Rewind after riding Space Mountain that morning, or vice versa.

If you reread my post you'll see that I said Cosmic Rewind suggests in its execution that there's less latitude for difference - which doesn't mean you can't do anything else with a coaster in a box, because clearly Disney has with other attractions, but rather that it's evidence that Disney has little intention to do differently with this sort of concept. When it comes to coasters in a box to simulate Space Travel they seem to have a language they're comfortable with. Which, like, it's amazing there's even such a sample size to refer to.

For the record, I had issues with the idea of TRON in EPCOT, and this was among them, not that I think that counts for much at this point.

Your point about same-y attractions at EPCOT was my earlier point - that the shared "long-form Animatronic Dark Ride attraction" style offers so many opportunities to create a distinct attraction personality. And at EPCOT Center, they did just that. Famously, in fact. It's not like people confuse Horizons for Universe of Energy. In fact, that's why Cosmic Rewind can make jokes about those things - because even decades later people remember them distinctly.

I don't think people are necessarily using "Space 2.0" as a derogatory term - Space has certainly seen better days, and desperately needs to see them again, but that notwithstanding it's obviously a well regarded classic. The problem is in creating any big, new attraction that too closely seems to copy another one's homework. There's new tech, of course, but as I said, their aesthetic personalities are at many points indistinguishable.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I have to disagree with you here. Yes, it is a “coaster in a box” as you describe however, you have to at least admit that the experience is completely distinct.

Just because they are both “coasters in a box” doesn’t mean they are the same.

Guardians has all the conveniences of modern technology, the use of space seems very convincing and the huge screens are completely different then Space Mountain. Guardians has a backwards and (forwards?) launch as well as the rotating vehicles. Guardians also has an extremely immersive queue and story that Space (while I enjoy Space’s queue) doesn’t have. The ride is also uniquely guardians and really has a different feeling bolstered by that soundtrack. I haven’t experienced this attraction for myself yet so I can’t speak to the last point but I get the feeling from people that have ridden it say that it doesn’t “feel” like a normal coaster due to the rotation of the vehicles.

Also, I know it’s been discussed to death here but cost is never a measure of how good an attraction is or if it was “worth” it. At least in my opinion.

If you wanted to compare TRON and Guardians maybe their are more similarities there. I‘m just not seeing it for direct comparisons to Space Mountain beyond them both being space themed ”coaster in a box”.

I just reiterated this in my lastest post above - if you reread my post you quoted you'll see I was referring specifcally to the aesthetics of the attractions.


Here are two screenshots from Youtube Videos of Space Mountain and Cosmic Rewind - which one is which? At least 75% of both rides look like this (with the intention that you feel like you're careening through space), interspersed with short bursts of supplementary visuals:

I didn't say that cost was a measure of whether an attraction was worth it. My point was that for an attraction that (accounting for inflation) cost nearly 5 times what Space Mountain cost, we should have reasonably been able to expect more differences than "but this one spins and plays Conga!" or "But this one has flyaway walls in the Preshow!". There are some fun new sprinkles in Cosmic Rewind, but they sit on top of a very familiar cake.

I actually think there are more similarities between Cosmic Rewind and Space Mountain than there are between Space Mountain and TRON, but even then I still think Space and TRON are too similar for my taste. Building them next door seems, to me, like a silly, uncalculated move. But I'll give you that it would have been even worse if Cosmic Rewind had popped up in Tomorrowland alongside Space Mountain.

 

[CM.X777]

Really?!? They didn't pay to get Bradley Cooper back to do Rocket FFS!!!

 

[ohioguy]

Per the video: Looks like they could have updated Space Mountain and it would have been fine.

 

[Anteater]

Hello....McFly. isn't this the other park?

Well not anymore...

 

[TheEPCOTHistorian]

The song selection is interesting. Seems like you're either in a passive or active role based on the song choice that plays. With Gloria's Conga you're dancing through the cosmos fighting alongside the Guardians. With Tears for Fear's Everybody Wants to Rule the World you're just watching a battle unfold between the Nova Corp, Guardians and Eson the Searcher. It's entirely passive, a more laid-back vibe. At least that's how I perceive it. Interesting how the music selection can evoke a different response. Some of the songs come off gimmicky. I don't necessarily like the Tears for Fears song choice but it seems to be a nice counterbalance.

This. I Ran (So Far Away) feels like a "near escape encounter" type of deal. You see the Guardians' ship dipping and dodging as you curve and swoop around. Really fun.

 

[Hakunamatata]

This may have been addressed but there appear to be some glaring plot holes. They reference Groot giving his life to save the guardians/xandar and rocket mentions how fast “they grow up”. So this is supposed to be Groot 2.0 grown up. This would have happened after the events of Infinity War where Thanos had destroyed Xandar.

 

[TheEPCOTHistorian]

This may have been addressed but there appear to be some glaring plot holes. They reference Groot giving his life to save the guardians/xandar and rocket mentions how fast “they grow up”. So this is supposed to be Groot 2.0 grown up. This would have happened after the events of Infinity War where Thanos had destroyed Xandar.

They said it was not cannon in the MCU, so I guess the snap never happened and Xandar still exists?

 

[Touchdown]

This may have been addressed but there appear to be some glaring plot holes. They reference Groot giving his life to save the guardians/xandar and rocket mentions how fast “they grow up”. So this is supposed to be Groot 2.0 grown up. This would have happened after the events of Infinity War where Thanos had destroyed Xandar.

It’s another universe MCUparks, in that universe Peter Parker works with other science prodigies at a Stark research site too.

 

[Casper Gutman]

They said it was not cannon in the MCU, so I guess the snap never happened and Xandar still exists?

Xandar was destroyed by Thanos before the snap, through old fashioned brute force.

There's really no point in trying to place this ride into MCU canon, because the creators didn't try to do that. The bigger problem is that the plot, as presented, is full of contradictions. It's also tottally unnecessary - again, WHY is this a time travel plot at all, that element makes no difference whatsoever?!

I repeat myself, but this attraction must have been heavily rewritten late in development, and the "rewind" elements cut.

 

[mergatroid]

A review from somebody who has spent considerable time saying fairly negative things about this before riding and still has some criticisms. His overall opinion after riding it is that it's awesome. Again it's subjective, just because he rates it doesn't mean you have to. And to prove I'm not being dishonest (), he mentions budget cuts, motion sickness, a one hour delay in one of his three rides along with audio problems on another.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I have to disagree with you here. Yes, it is a “coaster in a box” as you describe however, you have to at least admit that the experience is completely distinct.

Just because they are both “coasters in a box” doesn’t mean they are the same.

Guardians has all the conveniences of modern technology, the use of space seems very convincing and the huge screens are completely different then Space Mountain. Guardians has a backwards and (forwards?) launch as well as the rotating vehicles. Guardians also has an extremely immersive queue and story that Space (while I enjoy Space’s queue) doesn’t have. The ride is also uniquely guardians and really has a different feeling bolstered by that soundtrack. I haven’t experienced this attraction for myself yet so I can’t speak to the last point but I get the feeling from people that have ridden it say that it doesn’t “feel” like a normal coaster due to the rotation of the vehicles.

Also, I know it’s been discussed to death here but cost is never a measure of how good an attraction is or if it was “worth” it. At least in my opinion.

If you wanted to compare TRON and Guardians maybe their are more similarities there. I‘m just not seeing it for direct comparisons to Space Mountain beyond them both being space themed ”coaster in a box”.

AA-heavy boat rides, omnimovers, and other types of dark rides are a medium akin to films. They offer the possibility for an infinite variety of tones, genres, visual styles, etc. That's the very correct premise on which EPCOT was built. Perhaps coasters-in-a-box could have similar variety (although the form presents far more obstacles), but Disney seems to lack the initiative or the talent to demonstrate that. Instead, we have four coasters in a dark warehouse with occasional points of illumination. Three of them have sci-fi themes.

Many of the differences you list to distinguish SM and GotG have to do with the physical sensation of riding. Disney's parks have always emphasized the visual experience. If they want to shift to a focus on physical sensation, there's no reason not to just build some exposed-track coasters.

You say the queue at GotG is different from that at SM - is it? The aesthetics are shockingly similar, far more so then they should be, given the IPs. The first room of the GotG could be plopped into the SM queue and it would fit just as well. You say GotG feels "uniquely Guardians" but this is one of the oddest things about the ride - it doesn't. At no point do you occupy a physical space that belongs to the GotG or that displays their aesthetic. The Guardians, amazingly, only appear on TV-sized screens, DESPITE the concept art we all saw. In fact, GotG is a very, very generic space adventure ride with relatively little of the supposed main characters.

 

[Surferboy567]

Many of the differences you list to distinguish SM and GotG have to do with the physical sensation of riding. Disney's parks have always emphasized the visual experience. If they want to shift to a focus on physical sensation, there's no reason not to just build some exposed-track coasters.

I still feel that the visual experience is WILDLY different then space. Yes, it has the same conceit of traveling though space with stars projected in the building but like I mentioned that is where the similarities end. The massive wrap around screens, (limited) but physical show pieces and yes the soundtrack are also responsible for creating a different atmosphere. Even the way the stars are projected in Guardians is much better then space. I think I could tell the difference based on that alone. Another thing, the “sensation“ here actually has to do with the story/visual elements here. So, it should absolutely be taken into account when talking about visuals.

.The first room of the GotG could be plopped into the SM queue and it would fit just as well.

You left out the second preshow. My question then becomes do you really think that would work in Space? My answer would be no also space has no preshows at all. Maybe, the “video” portion of the first preshow would work in Space, but none of the actual content in that video would work at all.

You say GotG feels "uniquely Guardians" but this is one of the oddest things about the ride - it doesn't. At no point do you occupy a physical space that belongs to the GotG or that displays their aesthetic. The Guardians, amazingly, only appear on TV-sized screens, DESPITE the concept art we all saw. In fact, GotG is a very, very generic space adventure ride with relatively little of the supposed main characters.

There isn’t much to say here but I fundamentally disagree with you here. You can’t tell me that everything from the phase chamber on isn’t “uniquely Guardians”. Even if you don’t like the video screens that is fine, but the physical queue space of walking around the starcharter is still “uniquely Guardians”. I also disagree with the characters not being present as they are throughout the entire ride even if it is though narration.

Yes, the AA’s were cut but I really don’t think they were crucial in this experience. They would of been nice, but the screens get the job done.

The aesthetics are shockingly similar, far more so then they should be, given the IPs.

I also find this interesting, what is the IP on Space other then generic Space? Their isn’t anything wrong with that but of course they are going to be similar. Space doesn’t really have it’s own identity other then retro future generic space (which again, is fine). Guardians absolutely has it‘s own identity but it will use those common Sci-Fi elements that space will use so of course their will be some overlap. I however, as listed above believe Guardians has it’s own identity.

 

[Casper Gutman]

There isn’t much to say here but I fundamentally disagree with you here. You can’t tell me that everything from the phase chamber on isn’t “uniquely Guardians”. Even if you don’t like the video screens that is fine, but the physical queue space of walking around the starcharter is still “uniquely Guardians”. I also disagree with the characters not being present as they are throughout the entire ride even if it is though narration.

If you can't see the incredible similarities between GotG and SM, we're unlikely to have many points we can meaningfully discuss. How many of the people offering first-hand reviews of GotG have mentioned SM? Now, how many folks offering early reviews of RotR compared it to Spaceship Earth - or even MMRR?

Absolutely nothing about the physical space of the post-starcharter queue reflects GotG. Without the one or two Xandalarian symbols on the wall, you could plop the biggest MCU fan in the world in that section and they would have no idea it was based on a Marvel property, let alone Guardians. The queue for Mission: Breakout is FAR better at capturing the Guardian aesthetic. In fact, while CR may (arguably) be the more enjoyable ride overall, Mission: Breakout is a far more "Guardians" Guardians ride, which is a real indictment of CR considering M:B was a relatively quick and cheap overlay of an existing attraction.

 

[mergatroid]

I still feel that the visual experience is WILDLY different then space. Yes, it has the same conceit of traveling though space with stars projected in the building but like I mentioned that is where the similarities end. The massive wrap around screens, (limited) but physical show pieces and yes the soundtrack are also responsible for creating a different atmosphere. Even the way the stars are projected in Guardians is much better then space. I think I could tell the difference based on that alone. Another thing, the “sensation“ here actually has to do with the story/visual elements here. So, it should absolutely be taken into account when talking about visuals.

You left out the second preshow. My question then becomes do you really think that would work in Space? My answer would be no also space has no preshows at all. Maybe, the “video” portion of the first preshow would work in Space, but none of the actual content in that video would work at all.

There isn’t much to say here but I fundamentally disagree with you here. You can’t tell me that everything from the phase chamber on isn’t “uniquely Guardians”. Even if you don’t like the video screens that is fine, but the physical queue space of walking around the starcharter is still “uniquely Guardians”. I also disagree with the characters not being present as they are throughout the entire ride even if it is though narration.

Yes, the AA’s were cut but I really don’t think they were crucial in this experience. They would of been nice, but the screens get the job done.

I also find this interesting, what is the IP on Space other then generic Space? Their isn’t anything wrong with that but of course they are going to be similar. Space doesn’t really have it’s own identity other then retro future generic space (which again, is fine). Guardians absolutely has it‘s own identity but it will use those common Sci-Fi elements that space will use so of course their will be some overlap. I however, as listed above believe Guardians has it’s own identity.

I think there'll always be those who will have their views and that's fine, you or I won't change them. When people keep using the term 'just a coaster in a box' it would appear that these people invariably dislike this attraction. It's similar to when people describe Universal Studios (ironically one of the detractors favourite parks) as 'too many rides with screens'. It's a simplistic way of putting something down whilst having the ability to justify it later by saying "Well you watch screens in them". Everyone is aware that there's far more to Universal than that and as you've just pointed out there's a very different feel to 'coasters in a box' especially if you experience them rather than judge them by watching them on youtube and claiming those who've actually ridden it and liked it are 'unfairly biased' or such.

This attraction is a coaster, it's a thrill ride. Some of Disney's most popular rides are their thrill rides even though they're tame in comparison to other parks. Perhaps people like you and I appreciate that there's a whole different feel from one coaster to another whilst the 'just a coaster in a box' people don't? It's funny that you don't hear the same people describe other coasters as 'just an outdoor coaster' and complain about Hulk, Velicicoaster and Rip Rockit all being the same, despite using that logic would make them the same also. Of course they're not the same, they have very different tracks, speeds, angles, loops and drops etc and they're loved by many. People like my beloved wife who won't ride them can't really understand why I find these 'fast rides' different to one another, but accepts that I do. Perhaps the 'coaster in a box' people are similar? Perhaps they're not being dishonest or playing games themselves (not that I've ever accused them of that despite me being accused of that) and perhaps they just don't get it?

Disney know people like coasters and know Guardians is a popular brand. They've built an attraction knowing like anything, not everyone will like it. They've made it really good fun, exciting, exhilarating, long and incorporated different elements for guests to enjoy. They didn't really design it for the 'just a coaster in a box' people, just as Universal didn't design Velocicoaster for the 'just an outdoor coaster people'. They gave it a 'space theme' because Guardians is based in space, imagine if they'd built it based entirely on an arctic theme in a cold, snow filled box? It's all subjective but I'm betting most that ride will absolutely love it, those that don't are never going to and that's a shame.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ]

Unless I'm somehow imagining things; I realized after having viewed a half-dozen Youtube videos that there is a point during the ride's duration where we come face to face with Eson as he stares us down with his headlamp eyes and yet the entire encounter doesn't register. There's no emotional connection, no fear, no threat no nothing because it's so brief an encounter that the presumed physical prop and lighting dynamics of the scene are not visible long enough to make an impact. It's like Disco-Yeti all over again. Blink and you miss it. Surely Imagineering didn't construct some mammoth Eson rig only for us to not see it!?

 

[celluloid]

Unless I'm somehow imagining things; I realized after having viewed a half-dozen Youtube videos that there is a point during the ride's duration where we come face to face with Eson as he stares us down with his headlamp eyes and yet the entire encounter doesn't register. There's no emotional connection, no fear, no threat no nothing because it's so brief an encounter that the presumed physical prop and lighting dynamics of the scene are not visible long enough to make a impact. It's like Disco-Yeti all over again. Blink and you miss it. Surely Imagineering didn't construct some mammoth Eson rig only for us to not see it!?

I am avoiding video spoilers but judging on how the last car in Runaway Railways gets a few major misses and it was called good enough, I am guessing they sadly left it unimpressive.