Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout announced for Disney California Adventure

[britain]

I guess what I'm saying is this:

Somebody chose to paint these orange and red panels with diagonal lines separating them on the back of the tower. Regardless of how close the public can see it, there are some artistic choices being made here. And in the process of this artistic choice, they are choosing to disregard the shapes on surface that they are painting on. And I call that tacky.

And it's a harbinger of potentially worse things to come on the front of the tower (I'm really worried about the catwalk area on the front painted all black).

 

[britain]

The Everest example actually demonstrates a good artistic choice done with the last scraps in the budget barrel. "Okay, we have a big flat wall here... how do we justify that shape?" They don't just paint more mountainside on it. They paint a Tibetan village on it.

Thoughtful creativity dealing with the constraints of the budget.

That's not what is happening here with GotG's Tower.

 

[Stevek]

I don't think people were arguing that the windows alone were an issue from any particular vantage point - but that they're more an indication of the general lack of investment and attention to detail in this project. The same was true of ToT, so its not a new criticism. I'm also not sure you can say that the new color scheme does anything to improve the back of the building.

The average guest really doesn't care that there are windows there...why wouldn't there be windows in a futuristic prison/tower/whateveritis?
It's folks like us on a message board that nitpick those details, and probably somewhat rightfully so based on the standards of "good show" Disney has set over the years.

 

[mickEblu]

I'll I have to say is...

KABLOOM!

Everything makes sense now.

 

[October82]

The average guest really doesn't care that there are windows there...why wouldn't there be windows in a futuristic prison/tower/whateveritis?
It's folks like us on a message board that nitpick those details, and probably somewhat rightfully so based on the standards of "good show" Disney has set over the years.

You're right that there's no reason whatever this building is supposed to be wouldn't have windows - why they would be clearly painted over might be a separate question - but that wasn't the problem that people were concerned about. The problem is that the lack of care put into repurposing this building shows, and this is just one prominent example.

It's a convenient refrain to excuse poor architectural decisions and a general lack of investment as unnoticeable to the "average guest". In reality, the "average guest" simple isn't that unaware. People notice and expect quality, especially from the industry leader. There can be legitimate disagreement over aesthetic choices, but we shouldn't pretend that the only people who notice these things are on internet message boards. We all ended up posting on places like this because we did notice these things.

The bigger point that is being made here is that there are good and bad practices in architecture and design. This is an example of the latter and indicative of larger issues.

 

[Curious Constance]

They may be taking some short cuts now, in the interest of opening ASAP as close to Guardians movie premiere as possible, with the intention of upgrading/fixing down the line.

But even if that's not the case. I just can't get myself all worked up over some short cuts taken here and there.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

They may be taking some short cuts now, in the interest of opening ASAP as close to Guardians movie premiere as possible, with the intention of upgrading/fixing down the line.

But even if that's not the case. I just can't get myself all worked up over some short cuts taken here and there.

Shortcuts are almost to be expected on a rush job like this...

Also, maybe its just me, but that would seem TOTALLY un-Disney for them to just get it up and functioning for a premiere date deadline with the intention of then "completing" it later on. If its not 100% done and working, they shouldn't open it.

 

[SSG]

With more Marvel stuff coming, it wouldn't be much of a surprise if Disney keeps tinkering with the tower's look.

 

[Practical Pig]

The average guest really doesn't care that there are windows there...why wouldn't there be windows in a futuristic prison/tower/whateveritis?

You're right that there's no reason whatever this building is supposed to be wouldn't have windows

Among the bizarre list of functions this building is supposed to encompass, it is a fortress, and a fortress covered in glass hotel windows is illogical. Sure, we could invent excuses for them to be there, like maybe they are made of some invincible alien material, but such a story isn't told with a glance at the exterior. The tower has plenty of decorative architectural details that serve no function other than visual interest, and for me, these window-shaped features are for now lumped in with that lot. Admittedly, I am stretching to get there, and there could have been a better solution involving more construction. But I'm far more concerned with the impact of the front on the theming within the park.

 

[Practical Pig]

Shortcuts are almost to be expected on a rush job like this...

Also, maybe its just me, but that would seem TOTALLY un-Disney for them to just get it up and functioning for a premiere date deadline with the intention of then "completing" it later on. If its not 100% done and working, they shouldn't open it.

Playing devil's advocate, it could be that final designs for the back are pending final plans for the rest of Marvel Land.

Edited to add that I've just noticed SSG's post above saying essentially the same thing.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Playing devil's advocate, it could be that final designs for the back are pending final plans for the rest of Marvel Land.

Possibly...but then its going to sit like that for years? Also, would that mean they'd have to re-do the front as well or is that acceptable to clash with the Marvel Land plans?

 

[Practical Pig]

Possibly...but then its going to sit like that for years? Also, would that mean they'd have to re-do the front as well or is that acceptable to clash with the Marvel Land plans?

I haven't any answers, but the direction my head is going is that how the back relates to whatever may go in to that expansion pad may depend on that final plan. For instance, they may build another show building up against the back of the tower, or there may be some additional story developed for the expansion that would inform specific design choices on the tower structure. All vague speculation, of course. Whatever the case, I don't see why they'd have to redo the front as long as whatever went in later didn't deny it's validity the way the front contradicts Buena Vista Street.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

I haven't any answers, but the direction my head is going is the how the back relates to whatever may go in to that expansion pad may depend on that final plan. For instance, they may build another show building up against the back of the tower, or there may be some additional story developed for the expansion that would inform specific design choices on the tower structure. All vague speculation, of course. Whatever the case, I don't see why they'd have to redo the front as long as whatever went in later didn't deny it's validity the way the front contradicts Buena Vista Street.

A lot of maybe's. Personally, I just think they painted the back, stood away from it and said, "that'll do". IF by some miraculous chance it was done intentionally with some forethought of future Marvel plans for that area, I will eat my own shoes.

 

[Practical Pig]

A lot of maybe's. Personally, I just think they painted the back, stood away from it and said, "that'll do". IF by some miraculous chance it was done intentionally with some forethought of future Marvel plans for that area, I will eat my own shoes.

You may well be right. Without being privy to their future plans, all we have are maybes. Let me stress that I'm not predicting that my scenario is likely, which is why I prefaced it as devil's advocacy.

 

[Phroobar]

A lot of maybe's. Personally, I just think they painted the back, stood away from it and said, "that'll do". IF by some miraculous chance it was done intentionally with some forethought of future Marvel plans for that area, I will eat my own shoes.

I think it was two teams. One did the front and the other did the back. The smarter people did the back side.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

You may well be right. Without being privy to their future plans, all we have are maybes. Let me stress that I'm not predicting that my scenario is likely, which is why I prefaced it as devil's advocacy.

I know...I'm just slightly giving you a hard time

 

[Practical Pig]

Hey Sweatpants, I've been meaning to ask you ... is your avatar actor Richard Ayoade, who played Moss on The IT Crowd?

 

[SSG]

Possibly...but then its going to sit like that for years? Also, would that mean they'd have to re-do the front as well or is that acceptable to clash with the Marvel Land plans?

I think we'd have to have a better idea of what the Marvel Land plans will be. Heck, right now we don't know for sure if Marvel stuff is going behind the Tower or up in the new expansion area, or both.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

Hey Sweatpants, I've been meaning to ask you ... is your avatar actor Richard Ayoade, who played Moss on The IT Crowd?

View attachment 192851

one and the same!

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

I think we'd have to have a better idea of what the Marvel Land plans will be. Heck, right now we don't know for sure if Marvel stuff is going behind the Tower or up in the new expansion area, or both.

That's true too. All we know now is that the tower is...meh.