Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind SPOILER Thread

[James Alucobond]

I think both perspectives are correct.

Imagine a friend takes you to dinner and pays the bill. (You don't see the menu or the check.) That night you jot down your thoughts about how the meal tasted. The next day, you friend tells you how much it cost, which turns out to be twice as much as you would have guessed. You do not go back to your notes and change your opinions about the taste of the food. The food itself "was what it was."

However, if you later are talking to folks about the restaurant business and what restaurateurs should or shouldn't do, you might want to think about the bad choices of that particular place you visited and how it could be much better managed. You might even decide not to go back.

The first scenario is like talking about the attraction itself. Is it good? Does it fit? Is it innovative? Does it have AAs? Will I want to go back? The second scenario is more about what could have been. How could that money have been put to better use? Was it worth it? I think it's fair to talk about both.

I generally agree, but the cost of an attraction is not as easy to respond to as overly expensive food. If I find a meal too expensive for the quality, I won't pay for it again (or at all, assuming your hypothetical in which someone else paid for it the first time). The cost of a single attraction, on the other hand, doesn't have as obvious a correlation to my ticket price and only represents a fraction of my overall experience at the parks, which I may in totality deem to be worth the price of admission even if I don't have 450 million dollars worth of love for the shiny new thing.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I think both perspectives are correct.

Imagine a friend takes you to dinner and pays the bill. (You don't see the menu or the check.) That night you jot down your thoughts about how the meal tasted. The next day, you friend tells you how much it cost, which turns out to be twice as much as you would have guessed. You do not go back to your notes and change your opinions about the taste of the food. The food itself "was what it was."

However, if you later are talking to folks about the restaurant business and what restaurateurs should or shouldn't do, you might want to think about the bad choices of that particular place you visited and how it could be much better managed. You might even decide not to go back.

The first scenario is like talking about the attraction itself. Is it good? Does it fit? Is it innovative? Does it have AAs? Will I want to go back? The second scenario is more about what could have been. How could that money have been put to better use? Was it worth it? I think it's fair to talk about both.

I can only agree with you, because of the two posters you're referring to I'm the one advocating for talking about both.

In fact, I made a very similar restaurant metaphor to @Incomudro a little while back, in reference to this exact same topic.

I can't imagine why anyone would suggest discussing the cost of the attraction amongst people who know it isn't permissible because not everyone knows it. That it shouldn't factor in to our opinions just because it doesn't factor into everyone's opinion.

Most guests don't know that the Yeti's been in B-Mode for nearly 15 years. That doesn't mean it isn't objectively an example of bad maintenance. And it doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't discuss it amonst us who know better.

 

[Centauri Space Station]

Offhand I don’t think Disney have ever gone public with admittance. Not even for Rocket Rods, Light Magic, Rivers of Light etc. - the only admission would perhaps be blaming prior management for DCA, WDSP and HKDL.

Didnt JIYI?

 

[TrojanUSC]

They did. Didn’t they also promise to “never do it again”? Though the initial decree came from higher than the lead. SeaWorld did the same with Infinity Falls.

Offhand I don’t think Disney have ever gone public with admittance. Not even for Rocket Rods, Light Magic, Rivers of Light etc. - the only admission would perhaps be blaming prior management for DCA, WDSP and HKDL.

For Rocket Rods Cynthia Hariss was on record blaming a budget-conscious decision to use the flat track and not build new banked curves as the reason for the heavy wear and the attraction's early demise.

 

[solidyne]

I can only agree with you, because of the two posters you're referring to I'm the one advocating for talking about both.

In fact, I made a very similar restaurant metaphor to @Incomudro a little while back, in reference to this exact same topic.

I can't imagine why anyone would suggest discussing the cost of the attraction amongst people who know it isn't permissible because not everyone knows it. That it shouldn't factor in to our opinions just because it doesn't factor into everyone's opinion.

Most guests don't know that the Yeti's been in B-Mode for nearly 15 years. That doesn't mean it isn't objectively an example of bad maintenance. And it doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't discuss it amonst us who know better.

I'm sorry for stealing the analogy! I honestly hadn't seen yours.

Basically, though, I think that to say "but most guests don't know how much it costs" doesn't necessarily mean "you can't talk about that."

 

[TrojanUSC]

Ridden this a number of times now.

This ride is a lot of fun and surprisingly thrilling, which is perhaps most important in a park that was completely void of any kind of thrills. Yes, it's completely the wrong park and yes, there are points of the ride that seem decidedly cheap. Most notably the launch area is a massive vacant room where a screen is only on the top left of the giant room, so it kind of gives off the sensation you are launching from a movie theater? There's also a giant center "island" in this room that would have been ideal for an animatronic as you make the u-turn before the launch. The blue lightning effects as you launch are a nice touch, however.

The story is utterly baffling and all six of us, riding on five separate occasions nearly back to back, could not piece together the complete story.

The exit hallway is also laughably bad and embarrassing. I thought we were being taken out backstage because the gift shop wasn't open yet. Nope, that's the same exit for everyone.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Didnt JIYI?

I'm fairly sure that is just a very well known second- or third-hand anecdote. It might very well be an intentional leak, of course, but that still wouldn't be a public declaration of failure.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I'm sorry for stealing the analogy! I honestly hadn't seen yours.

Basically, though, I think that to say "but most guests don't know how much it costs" doesn't necessarily mean "you can't talk about that."

Oh you’re fine - you didn’t steal it, it’s just a funny coincidence.

The poster we’re referring to has been using “Most guests don’t care how much it costs” as a discussion-terminating sentiment for more than a year now. Perhaps as long as we’ve had word on how high the numbers were. I can’t help but wonder if they’d have the same reaction if we’d found out the cost was surprisingly low given the attraction that was built, instead of surprisingly high as it turned out to be.

 

[imagineer97]

I'm fairly sure that is just a very well known second- or third-hand anecdote. It might very well be an intentional leak, of course, but that still wouldn't be a public declaration of failure.

I think there might be an interview with Tony Baxter somewhere where he basically admits JIYI was terrible and they tried to fix it, but it's still not great.

Or maybe it was just a fan fiction dream, like the one I had where GOTG had a fully animatronic preshow that honored the original spirit of Epcot instead of shoe-horned in references like "the Veggie fruit fruit."

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I generally agree, but the cost of an attraction is not as easy to respond to as overly expensive food. If I find a meal too expensive for the quality, I won't pay for it again (or at all, assuming your hypothetical in which someone else paid for it the first time). The cost of a single attraction, on the other hand, doesn't have as obvious a correlation to my ticket price and only represents a fraction of my overall experience at the parks, which I may in totality deem to be worth the price of admission even if I don't have 450 million dollars worth of love for the shiny new thing.

The analogy doesn’t really work either because the cost is to the business, not directly to us.

If I go out to dinner and pay $150 for my meal (appetizer, soup, bread, steak, lobster, potato, and cocktail) and enjoy it I don’t care what the restaurant paid their supplier for the potato, lobster, or steak, my price is $150 regardless of what they paid to get the raw ingredients. In the restaurant scenario it would be like talking to the chef the next day and finding out they paid $50 for the piece of steak rather than the $15 we are used to at the grocery store… we might question why they pay so much, especially if we can see repairs needed around the restaurant, but in the end it doesn’t matter because we enjoyed it and our price still would have been $150 whether they paid $15 or $50.

One could argue the price of Guardians will be indirectly passed on to us in ticket increases but the reality is tickets were going up the same amount anyway, they’ll increase them as much as they think they can without harming attendance, guardians price wont even be a factor.

 

[marni1971]

For Rocket Rods Cynthia Hariss was on record blaming a budget-conscious decision to use the flat track and not build new banked curves as the reason for the heavy wear and the attraction's early demise.

I didn’t think she / the company came out and said it itself?

 

[Deadly Danson]

If a ride is just enjoyable at a cost of $450 million and the destruction of an original Epcot pavilion it’s fair to ask “is it worth it?”

Of course that’s debatable. I think a red car trolley addition at DHS would be worth it and many wouldn’t agree. But for $450 m I’m pretty sure we could have gotten an updated Imagination pavilion, updated universe of energy and a bare bones coaster that had a marvel name and was still a “fun ride” - that’s where there is room for debate here.

Out of curiousity, when did you last visit Disneyland Paris? I’ve heard upkeep has improved there.

A few months ago. Stayed at Newport Bay. Without any question the standard of my room at the value Pop Century was considerably higher. There's plenty to love at Paris and there's plenty to love at WDW. There's plenty to criticize at both too and of course there's plenty of room to debate both the cost, the impact and how GOTG fits at Epcot but ultimately we come to the parks to have fun surely and if it's a fun, immersive ride (and I've avoided POVs so far) then it's done its job.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

The analogy doesn’t really work either because the cost is to the business, not directly to us.

If I go out to dinner and pay $150 for my meal (appetizer, soup, bread, steak, lobster, potato, and cocktail) and enjoy it I don’t care what the restaurant paid their supplier for the potato, lobster, or steak, my price is $150 regardless of what they paid to get the raw ingredients. In the restaurant scenario it would be like talking to the chef the next day and finding out they paid $50 for the piece of steak rather than the $15 we are used to at the grocery store… we might question why they pay so much, especially if we can see repairs needed around the restaurant, but in the end it doesn’t matter because we enjoyed it and our price still would have been $150 whether they paid $15 or $50.

One could argue the price of Guardians will be indirectly passed on to us in ticket increases but the reality is tickets were going up the same amount anyway, they’ll increase them as much as they think they can without harming attendance, guardians price wont even be a factor.

Okay, so consider this - If you go to the restaurant, pay $150 for that meal, enjoy it, and then find out that instead of the $15 you'd pay for a similar steak at the store the restaurant paid $300? For a cut that was good but not exceptional? And that they're paying a third more for that than any other cut of anything that they or anyone has ever served anywhere? May not change how much you liked the food, but it may cause you to wonder if someone running the show is a fool, or worse.

This is the problem with Cosmic Rewind's cost. It's not just that it was expensive. It was horrendously expensive. More expensive than any ride in Walt Disney World by at least $100Mil, and likely more expensive than any single themed attraction in the entire world. And yet it features relatively few bells and practically no whistles. For the price they paid, the guests should be recieving the finest everything of anything they've ever done. Instead it's a lightly-themed version of an existing ride system in an exposed warehouse with a couple projection screens and a soundtrack plucked from the radio.

What did they create with all that money?? With a budget more than three times the size of most blockbuster E-Tickets, how did they get away with turning in something that doesn't push any boundaries?

 

[mergatroid]

I can only agree with you, because of the two posters you're referring to I'm the one advocating for talking about both.

In fact, I made a very similar restaurant metaphor to @Incomudro a little while back, in reference to this exact same topic.

I can't imagine why anyone would suggest discussing the cost of the attraction amongst people who know it isn't permissible because not everyone knows it. That it shouldn't factor in to our opinions just because it doesn't factor into everyone's opinion.

Most guests don't know that the Yeti's been in B-Mode for nearly 15 years. That doesn't mean it isn't objectively an example of bad maintenance. And it doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't discuss it amonst us who know better.

I don't believe anybody has said it isn't permissible, have they? People have legitimately argued that the vast majority of guests won't factor the cost in and why should they. I also keep reading that posters are 'shutting down' arguments about the cost? All they're doing is giving an opinion that differs to another persons.

So all this "It's not permissible to talk about it" or "The boosters keep shutting down the arguments" really isn't there or true, it's just an alternative opinion. I may not agree with much of what you say about this attraction, that's life and there's no animosity over what you think about a theme park attraction from me as I'm sure there isn't from yourself towards me either. But I don't see anyone saying you can't have your opinion, it's just people not agreeing and expressing that.

 

[Incomudro]

I don't believe anybody has said it isn't permissible, have they? People have legitimately argued that the vast majority of guests won't factor the cost in and why should they. I also keep reading that posters are 'shutting down' arguments about the cost? All they're doing is giving an opinion that differs to another persons.

So all this "It's not permissible to talk about it" or "The boosters keep shutting down the arguments" really isn't there or true, it's just an alternative opinion. I may not agree with much of what you say about this attraction, that's life and there's no animosity over what you think about a theme park attraction from me as I'm sure there isn't from yourself towards me. But I don't see anyone saying you can't have your opinion, it's just people not agreeing.

Yes, I certainly never said the argument isn't permissible.
I'm n no position to tell anyone what they can or can not say, nor would I want to.
I do however think the argument is mostly an attempt at grasping straws.
An attempt to delegitimize the ride, that is from all indications a smash.

 

[James Alucobond]

Okay, so consider this - If you go to the restaurant, pay $150 for that meal, enjoy it, and then find out that instead of the $15 you'd pay for a similar steak at the store the restaurant paid $300? For a cut that was good but not exceptional? And that they're paying a third more for that than any other cut of anything that they or anyone has ever served anywhere? May not change how much you liked the food, but it may cause you to wonder if someone running the show is a fool, or worse.

This is the problem with Cosmic Rewind's cost. It's not just that it was expensive. It was horrendously expensive. More expensive than any ride in Walt Disney World by at least $100Mil, and likely more expensive than any single themed attraction in the entire world. And yet it features relatively few bells and practically no whistles. For the price they paid, the guests should be receiving the finest everything of anything they've ever done. Instead it's a lightly-themed version of an existing ride system in an exposed warehouse with a couple projection screens and a soundtrack plucked from the radio.

What did they create with all that money?? With a budget more than three times the size of most blockbuster E-Tickets, how did they get away with turning in something that doesn't push any boundaries?

I agree that the cost seems ridiculous to me. I agree that posters should be able to discuss it freely and that some are being what I would consider overly dismissive of the cost. I also agree that posters should be able to discuss an attraction without being hounded to consider whether or not their feelings are valid within the context of a price tag that they are ill-equipped to evaluate and ultimately has no immediately perceptible impact on their experience. It may have a long-term impact, but that's understandably hazy, and there are also no mechanisms through which we can express any dissatisfaction about it anyway. It's not like my guest satisfaction survey will ask me if I felt Cosmic Rewind was worth $450 million.

 

[mergatroid]

I agree that the cost seems ridiculous to me. I agree that posters should be able to discuss it freely and that some are being what I would consider overly dismissive of the cost. I also agree that posters should be able to discuss an attraction without being hounded to consider whether or not their feelings are valid within the context of a price tag that they are ill-equipped to evaluate and ultimately has no immediately perceptible impact on their experience. It may have a long-term impact, but that's understandably hazy, and there are also no mechanisms through which we can express any dissatisfaction about it anyway. It's not like my guest satisfaction survey will ask me if I felt Cosmic Rewind was worth $450 million.

Let's be honest, can anyone give a reliable break down of what all the parts cost and how much exactly went into R & D? I love the Hagrids ride at Universal but was gob smacked to discover that it cost $300 million, I also don't remember there being a huge debate about the cost either (though I could be wrong there?).

The cost of CR has now been rounded up to a half billion dollars by many on here, tell a lie enough and it becomes the truth it's often said. Ironically the same people saying this are the very people complaining about the cost versus product, happy to class $50 million more than the cost as nothing despite wanting every cent accounting for on Disney's part. There's no debating it's a lot of money and nobody is saying it's not permissible to discuss it as is claimed, but we're hardly experts on the cost of these things.

I believe Martin said it cost between $410 million to $450 million (Correct me if I'm wrong) but at best we're talking about estimates. Disney may have overpaid but without being in on the project and seeing people now calling it "half a billion dollars" a lot of it is estimated costs. It's a huge amount of money and it can be talked about by anyone, it is 'permissible'. On the surface it seems over the odds, but the way some are clinging on to it with the "But it cost half a billion dollars" comments seems like they're clinging onto that as a way to belittle an attraction that's getting better reviews than they think it deserves.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Yes, I certainly never said the argument isn't permissible.
I'm n no position to tell anyone what they can or can not say, nor would I want to.
I do however think the argument is mostly an attempt at grasping straws.
An attempt to delegitimize the ride, that is from all indications a smash.

Now now, there's a big difference between "I personally don't care about the cost" and "OMG 3 people care and they've clogged the thread with it". You're clearly trying to dismiss the point and the people making it. Talk about attempts to delegitimize.

The core of the issue is that the ride, fun or not, is not particularly impressive for an attraction of its physical scale and position as a headliner. Perhaps that would be less pressing if they got it for a steal - If this attraction cost $50 Million instead of $450 I'd be shouting from the rooftops how much they got for so little. But the inverse is true. They paid more money than ever, by a HUGE amount, and made a pretty basic ride that's merely fun. That's an important but easy threshold to meet. The Teacups are fun, but it would be a problem if they cost $100 Mil. And it's fine if that wouldn't bother you, but don't try to shut up the people who do care. Which your posting history shows you've clearly been trying to do.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Let's be honest, can anyone give a reliable break down of what all the parts cost and how much exactly went into R & D? I love the Hagrids ride at Universal but was gob smacked to discover that it cost $300 million, I also don't remember there being a huge debate about the cost either (though I could be wrong there?).

The cost of CR has now been rounded up to a half billion dollars by many on here, tell a lie enough and it becomes the truth it's often said. Ironically the same people saying this are the very people complaining about the cost versus product, happy to class $50 million more than the cost as nothing despite wanting every cent accounting for on Disney's part.

Nobody needs every cent accounted for. But when a roller coaster through an empty warehouse costs a full Expedition: Everest more than Rise of the Resistance, the most physicially elaborate and impressive attraction built on property this century, something is clearly amiss and deserves to be called out.

I agree that the cost of the attraction is bad enough when reported accurately that it need not be rounded up, which is why I consistently refer to the $450 Million as it is.

 

[mergatroid]

The core of the issue is that the ride, fun or not, is not particularly impressive for an attraction of its physical scale and position as a headliner. Perhaps that would be less pressing if they got it for a steal - If this attraction cost $50 Million instead of $450 I'd be shouting from the rooftops how much they got for so little. But the inverse is true. They paid more money than ever, by a HUGE amount, and made a pretty basic ride that's merely fun. That's an important but easy threshold to meet. The Teacups are fun, but it would be a problem if they cost $100 Mil. And it's fine if that wouldn't bother you, but don't try to shut up the people who do care. Which your posting history shows you've clearly been trying to do.

It could be argued that you're doing the exact same thing to him, trying to shut his opinion down also? How is what you're doing any different, it's just different opinions?

Think about it, you're saying "It does matter how much it cost because of x, y and z" and he's saying "It doesn't matter how much it cost because of x, y and z"? Nobody is shutting anyone down or trying to?