Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout announced for Disney California Adventure

[HMF]

I'd prefer to avoid a nitpicking debate about placemaking details and theming, but I will share a few examples of why I think some of you might be putting too much emphasis on the misalignment of MB's exterior with its immediate setting. As these photos show the land is not, and has never been, a faithful and immersive recreation of old Hollywood.

Again, I agree that MB only confuses the hodge-podge storytelling, but you aren't going to convince me that Hollywood Land as it exists right now has a visually cohesive and clearly defined theme.

Yes and WDI had plans to fix that. However, that's never going to happen now thanks to Marvel.

 

[Practical Pig]

Also, the premise of the ride sounds a bit more novel to me than a haunted hotel.

I'm going to agree with that part wholeheartedly. The TOT theme was never important to me, just as I'm indifferent to the GOTG theme. The ride experience will be paramount.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Yes and WDI had plans to fix that. However, that's never going to happen now thanks to Marvel.

Kindly stop moving the goalposts. First it was it doesn't fit the Hollywood theme. Now it's well the Hollywood theme was actually broken before MB, but it'll never get fixed because of Marvel.

 

[HMF]

Kindly stop moving the goalposts. First it was it doesn't fit the Hollywood theme. Now it's well the Hollywood theme was actually broken before MB, but it'll never get fixed because of Marvel.

It's not broken, it was poorly done and they were going to fix it but can't anymore thanks to Marvel.

 

[Practical Pig]

but you aren't going to convince me that Hollywood land already has a visually cohesive and clearly defined theme.

I wouldn't dream of trying.

I will share a few examples of why I think some of you might be putting too much emphasis on the misalignment of MB's exterior with its immediate setting.

I am putting no emphasis on "the misalignment of MB's exterior with its immediate setting," at all. I think I've been pretty clear about that, going out of my way to emphasize the distinction. It is solely the misalignment with the rest of the park and the relatively recent redefining placemaking that Disney invested so heavily in that I object to.

 

[mickEblu]

I'd prefer to avoid a nitpicking debate about placemaking details and theming, but I will share a few examples of why I think some of you might be putting too much emphasis on the misalignment of MB's exterior with its immediate setting. As these photos show the land is not, and has never been, a faithful and immersive recreation of old Hollywood.

Again, I agree that MB only confuses the hodge-podge storytelling, but you aren't going to convince me that Hollywood Land as it exists right now has a visually cohesive and clearly defined theme.

No it's definitely not cohesive right now. I can't speak for everyone but I think we were all hoping that all of the old DCA 1.0 stuff (pics above) would be plussed to match what they started in 2012. The GOTG tower is a huge unnecessary step backwards.

 

[yookeroo]

Hi! Just quoting this as your legacy on these boards since it's such a fascinating opinion!

I guess fascinating is one way to put it.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I am putting no emphasis on "the misalignment of MB's exterior with its immediate setting," at all.

In your previous comment re: the differences between the two facades you said that ToT, "belonged in the world as they had chosen to define it", which I took to mean that MB does not.

 

[Ismael Flores]

Yeah, with the huge scale of a tower repainting refurb, I expect we will see fading. There are UV resistant coatings available, but I don't know their cost/effectiveness ratio.

They don't really last, I do advertising for major entertainment corporations and no paint or ink really holds well now a days even those that are "fade resistant". Manufacturers even have disclaimers that some of those supposedly fade resistant pigments are not gauatantees past certain amount of times in certain weathers and climates

 

[Ismael Flores]

I never thought TOT was something beautiful. I didn't think it was ugly either. It blended into the surroundings a lot better, was thematically appropriate and wasn't painted bright orange. I think the differences are pretty clear.

Yes and for now apparently is right....but I'm not so sure I want to see a whole land dedicated to an industrial look with that color scheme, do you? Looks like kind of a lose lose situation. I'm sure the rides will be fun though. Well I know one will be cuz I've ridden it a bunch of times already. Lol

When TOT was first built it also wasn't thematically appropriate. It was an abandoned hotel inside a backstage facility. That whole section of the park was supposedly a studio backlot. Every building had fake facades with studio sound stage numbers. it also loomed over the sunshine plaza which was In no way the 1930's instead it was the edgy California with beach boys music playing along with the occasional "calling Mickey Mouse please report to soundstage number.

And let's not forget the outrage when it was built and people complained that the ugly exterior was visible from Condor flats which was innapropriate because a wrecked ugly building lined up to the runway.

It's really no different, we will complain now and as the park evolves and things come together that outrage is gone.

 

[HMF]

When TOT was first built it also wasn't thematically appropriate. It was an abandoned hotel inside a backstage facility. That whole section of the park was supposedly a studio backlot. Every building had fake facades with studio sound stage numbers. it also loomed over the sunshine plaza which was In no way the 1930's instead it was the edgy California with beach boys music playing along with the occasional "calling Mickey Mouse please report to soundstage number.

And let's not forget the outrage when it was built and people complained that the ugly exterior was visible from Condor flats which was innapropriate because a wrecked ugly building lined up to the runway.

It's really no different, we will complain now and as the park evolves and things come together that outrage is gone.

Yes, we know what happened when DCA opened. That's why they spent 1.2 billion dollars to fix it into a coherent theme . A theme they are ruining again with this idiotic decision.

 

[Professortango1]

You don't happen to post as Indyfan over on MiceChat do you? If not, look him up. You have remarkably similar arguments.

Haha...yeeees....

 

[mickEblu]

When TOT was first built it also wasn't thematically appropriate. It was an abandoned hotel inside a backstage facility. That whole section of the park was supposedly a studio backlot. Every building had fake facades with studio sound stage numbers. it also loomed over the sunshine plaza which was In no way the 1930's instead it was the edgy California with beach boys music playing along with the occasional "calling Mickey Mouse please report to soundstage number.

And let's not forget the outrage when it was built and people complained that the ugly exterior was visible from Condor flats which was innapropriate because a wrecked ugly building lined up to the runway.

It's really no different, we will complain now and as the park evolves and things come together that outrage is gone.

My response is basically what @HMF above. And yes I agree everyone will get over it but that doesn't make it a good decision. I wasn't around for the outrage when TOT went up but I can imagine. I would like to think I have a fair and balanced view on things.

 

[Practical Pig]

In your previous comment re: the differences between the two facades you said that ToT, "belonged in the world as they had chosen to define it", which I took to mean that MB does not.

I did mean that the park-dominating MB exterior doesn't belong in that previously defined world. I also understand that the definition of that world is in constant flux. The practical part of this pig certainly understands that the "world" that Disney defines is subject to current executive choices involving market pressure. But I can still hope for better choices.

I really don't think that we are so very far away from each other in our opinions about this, just positioned at different vantage points. When I decided to join, yours was one of the voices with which I found myself nodding frequently in agreement.

 

[HMF]

My response is basically what @HMF above. And yes I agree everyone will get over it but that doesn't make it a good decision.

Exactly, There are things that Disney has done that I have never "gotten over" and bother me to this day. It doesn't completely erase my enjoyment of the parks but it certainly diminishes it.

 

[mickEblu]

Oh the differences are very clear, and again, I'm not bothered that you prefer the previous look. I'm reacting to your argument that the new look is ugly. They are both ugly by any standard, but by what degree is up for debate. Point is in my view, and looking at the building and nothing else, nothing has been lost or gained in the aesthetics department. And the fact that they're switching out a non-Disney franchise for the first big Disney/Marvel experience (though I am worn out from all the IP everywhere) in the US is a huge win for DCA and DLR.



That's a good question, and I admit I'm hesitant. I agree with you and others that the GoTG look clashes with the Red Car and the immediate story surrounding the attraction in Hollywood Land, not to mention the park's retro California narrative. Maybe I've seen enough of these controversial changes at Disneyland come and go to the point that I'm immune to them, but I kind of feel like I'd rather wait to see how things develop before getting too worked about it. Also, the premise of the ride sounds a bit more novel to me than a haunted hotel.

I'm sorry. I disagree that nothing has been lost in the aestheitcs department but now we re getting into personal taste. I think a real win would of been a purpose built Marvel attraction, not an overlay. Well I guess dropping down an Alien oil refinery is more unique (novel). To me it sounds like forcing something that didn't belong there.

 

[TP2000]

I think problem was Disney had already dragged its feet (since 2009) with getting anything Marvel in the parks, so we have a re-theme instead of something purpose built.

That's the part where I don't really blame Bob Chapek for this, setting aside the artistic merits of Guardians in HollywoodLand.

Disney spent $4 Billion to buy Marvel in '09, and then Parks Chairman Jay Rasulo (total bonehead) and then Tom Staggs (semi-bonehead) just sat on it. And sat on it. And did nothing more than dedicate some shelf space in the Star Trader to selling Marvel t-shirts and get a couple blue-eyed guys from Fullerton Junior College to pretend to be Thor and Captain America for photos with vacationing housewives.

Chapek then gets promoted to Parks chief two years ago nearly to the day on February 22, 2015, and there's still absolutely nothing being done about getting Marvel rides into the parks.

It's obvious that Chapek must have thought "What the heck are we waiting for here?!?" and instructed WDI to present their ideas for fast additions of Marvel into the parks. I really can't blame him for that, after the visionless incompetence of his two immediate predecessors.

 

[HMF]

That's the part where I don't really blame Bob Chapek for this, setting aside the artistic merits of Guardians in HollywoodLand.

Disney spent $4 Billion to buy Marvel in '09, and then Parks Chairman Jay Rasulo (total bonehead) and then Tom Staggs (semi-bonehead) just sat on it. And sat on it. And did nothing more than dedicated some shelf space in the Star Trader to selling Marvel t-shirts. Chapek gets promoted to Parks chief two years ago nearly to the day on February 22, 2015, and there's still absolutely nothing being done about getting Marvel rides into the parks.

It's obvious that Chapek must have thought "What the heck are we waiting for here?!?" and instructed WDI to present their ideas for fast additions of Marvel into the parks. I really can't blame him for that, after the visionless incompetence of his two immediate predecessors.

There is also the issue of a certain competitor having the theme park rights.

 

[mickEblu]

That's the part where I don't really blame Bob Chapek for this, setting aside the artistic merits of Guardians in HollywoodLand.

Disney spent $4 Billion to buy Marvel in '09, and then Parks Chairman Jay Rasulo (total bonehead) and then Tom Staggs (semi-bonehead) just sat on it. And sat on it. And did nothing more than dedicated some shelf space in the Star Trader to selling Marvel t-shirts. Chapek gets promoted to Parks chief two years ago nearly to the day on February 22, 2015, and there's still absolutely nothing being done about getting Marvel rides into the parks.

It's obvious that Chapek must have thought "What the heck are we waiting for here?!?" and instructed WDI to present their ideas for fast additions of Marvel into the parks. I really can't blame him for that, after the visionless incompetence of his two immediate predecessors.

I understand where Chapek was coming from but do you not think any of the following scenarios would have been better for DLR?

1. GOTG: MB could have been a temporary overlay until Marvel Land opens

2. Star Tours could have been rethemed to GOTG.

3. GOTG gets a brand new ride in Marvel Land

 

[TP2000]

There is also the issue of a certain competitor having the theme park rights.

At the place out in Florida, where Rasulo and Staggs and Chapek never go. But not Disneyland in SoCal, where all the executives and creatives and movers and shakers are.

Chapek obviously saw this as "low hanging fruit" and a huge missed opportunity to start paying off his bosses $4 Billion investment in Marvel.