Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout announced for Disney California Adventure

flynnibus

Premium Member
What's the difference between one that is for or against this overlay? Im here everyday explaining why I don't like the project and you are here everyday defending it. Why should you care so much to defend GOTG:MB every day?
Walmart thinking... don't care about the impact or where it takes you... just be happy you got your cheaper loaf of bread.
 

sedati

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
The entire legacy of Disney was built on care. The idea of care and being different is what set Disney apart from the others. It was that care for precise detail that gave us EPCOT Center. Little details mattered to the company even from outside the park. Just like how Tower in Orlando was designed with the idea it would be seen from Epcot. THAT'S care. Of course now we are expected to take change at face value and the theming around it can go to hell.
Yes, the Tower from World Showcase is a neat detail- but one I think was more happy accident that they use as a fun bit of trivia. Four years earlier we got the Swan and Dolphin hotels that annihilated the scale and theme of an entire vista of World Showcase. People complained and I think it was worth complaining about. Even the later hotels such as Yacht and Beach could be seen. But is this really any worse than seeing most of Future World from World Showcase? Is seeing the glass pyramids of Imagination looming over Canada really worse than seeing the Pyramid of the Dolphin Looming over the UK? If so, why? Seeing the colonial style American Adventure pavilion from Future World is also a contradiction, but also serves as a draw. Walk around the beloved Epcot Center and you'll see clashing juxtapositions at almost every turn.
Maybe that was the beginning of the end theming wise, so let's go back further. Another fun bit of trivia is how the Contemporary Resort was meant to be seen from Tomorrowland, as the both shared a futuristic look. But the original Tomorrowland was gleaming white with blue accents and gracious curves. How did an out-of-scale gray angular behemoth go with that? It looked like an enormous toaster looming over the park.
Please continue to tell us so bluntly how we are destroying the legacy of care. I'll listen and I'll usually credit you with being partially in the right. But most of these arguments seem to boil down to "it was perfect the way I remember it- why are they ruining my childhood and the company."
 
  • Like
Reactions: egg

Dr. Hans Reinhardt

Well-Known Member
What's the difference between one that is for or against this overlay? Im here everyday explaining why I don't like the project and you are here everyday defending it. Why should you care so much to defend GOTG:MB every day?
I'm not defending anything. I'm only saying that overall I'm impressed by what I've see so far. The placement of such a eye catching building is problematic though, and I agree with those who say it's incongruous with the immediate area surrounding it. At the end of the day though I really don't care that much, and there's no point in saying the same thing over and over. Which is why I've taken a break from this discussion over the past couple of days.
 

FigmentForver96

Well-Known Member
Yes, the Tower from World Showcase is a neat detail- but one I think was more happy accident that they use as a fun bit of trivia. Four years earlier we got the Swan and Dolphin hotels that annihilated the scale and theme of an entire vista of World Showcase. People complained and I think it was worth complaining about. Even the later hotels such as Yacht and Beach could be seen. But is this really any worse than seeing most of Future World from World Showcase? Is seeing the glass pyramids of Imagination looming over Canada really worse than seeing the Pyramid of the Dolphin Looming over the UK? If so, why? Seeing the colonial style American Adventure pavilion from Future World is also a contradiction, but also serves as a draw. Walk around the beloved Epcot Center and you'll see clashing juxtapositions at almost every turn.
Maybe that was the beginning of the end theming wise, so let's go back further. Another fun bit of trivia is how the Contemporary Resort was meant to be seen from Tomorrowland, as the both shared a futuristic look. But the original Tomorrowland was gleaming white with blue accents and gracious curves. How did an out-of-scale gray angular behemoth go with that? It looked like an enormous toaster looming over the park.
Please continue to tell us so bluntly how we are destroying the legacy of care. I'll listen and I'll usually credit you with being partially in the right. But most of these arguments seem to boil down to "it was perfect the way I remember it- why are they ruining my childhood and the company."
No the tower was done with purpose. They cared and Eisner even cared at that point, and yes just a bit later the towers would look over the park. Of course anyone who reads into that story can see why Eisner let it happen. Now as far as seeing American Adventure from Future World, there is no point of place before reaching those places. I'm not in America until I reach that point where my back is turned and I'm in that area. I'm not meant to look towards the water but be IN the pavilion so yes the design was done on purpose and with purpose. So that was not the beginning of the end. Each pavilion drew you to the other and I'm sure we can bring Marni into this and he would be happy to tell you how the literal shape and style of the pavilions served a point. The contemporary was just that, a modern looking building that worked for the temp look they were going for in the park. They knew Space Mountain was coming.

DCA Tower of Terror is not perfect by no means. The Orlando version is far more superior in almost every way. The problem is the park already has issues with detail and design and this will not help. The ride itself can be awesome. Frozen is a decent ride but in doesn't belong in Epcot for the reason it didn't even take place in Norway. Why is the collectors tower in Hollywood California?

The truth of the matter is the ride is here and it's ugly and I'm willing to accept that. That Disney cares about saving a buck, making merch sales and theming be darned.

What's laughable is when people try, with a straight face, try to explain the deep and mysterious secrets of the tower as if it will ever be as detailed as the original ride. That's what's funny.
 

DDLand

Well-Known Member
What's laughable is when people try, with a straight face, try to explain the deep and mysterious secrets of the tower as if it will ever be as detailed as the original ride. That's what's funny.
This ride system is a compelling experience.

When The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror first burst onto the scene, it completely redefined the drop ride experience. Instead of being an attraction that relied on physical sensation alone, it was suddenly equipped to be a storytelling device. Instead of the drop being the experience, the drop became part of an experience. Part of a story.

This whole ride system followed the same path roller coasters did before it. Before Matterhorn, roller coaster attractions relied on the most basic sensations to create an experience. After Matterhorn (and especially after Walt's Space Mountain) roller coasters were empowered. They could tell amazing stories.

Splash Mountain did much the same with flumes. Though I'd be remiss if not to mention there was Story in some flumes before Splash Mountain, but the scale and complexity pushed boundaries.

All of this to say, what limit is there on a certain ride system? Why must a storytelling drop Tower be constrained into a narrow box? Why can't a new team come in using an existing ride concept and create a story just as compelling or even better than the first? Why isn't it possible for Joe and his team to push boundaries within an existing structure?

What would be different if Joe and his team were building a drop tower from scratch? Maybe some of the architectural forms on exterior, but largely it would be similiar. A drop Tower.

Now it is conceivable that they wouldn't have chosen a drop Tower as the preferred medium, which is reasonable. That is what they were dealt though. They're now working with this framework and are completely rethinking the core ideas. They're telling the most radically different Disney drop Tower story yet.

This ride very well could be as detailed as the original. Why can't it? Why can't the same level of thought and care be put into this project?

What makes this different?

I know a lot of people don't adore Guardians of the Galaxy, myself included, but Joe Rohde and his team absolutely can knock this out of the park. They absolutely are putting the same level of care and thought into this project as any other project.

There's a certain irony that many of the most ardent Avatar defenders (and I would describe myself as one of the fiercest of the Avatar opposition) are decrying this move, even as these two projects bear a surprising resemblance. Sci-fi where there should be more fantasy (fantasy of Hollywood no less). Aliens where it should be about people. Hottest IP when it should have been more about originality.

I'll be the first to say that this project's placement stinks. This is not optimal. Just like Avatar's placement still upsets me. I'll still appreciate the level of care and detail put into these projects though. I still will enjoy myself in the two areas.

This ride has been extensively thought out. It will absolutely push storytelling boundaries at Disney California Adventure. It may be the most meaningful attraction at DCA.

They've infused it with meaning. Everyone's laughed at this notion, but no one has rebutted it.

That's because it's actually the message.

Oh, and while I'm posting, @MonkeyHead next time you share my content link me to it so I can see your delightful commentary!:p:cool: ;)
 
Last edited:

sedati

Well-Known Member
No the tower was done with purpose. They cared and Eisner even cared at that point, and yes just a bit later the towers would look over the park.
As I said, the Hotels came four years before the Tower of Terror. If it was more than a happy accident that it aligned with Morocco, than that was a nice bit of attention after throwing scale and view out the window for that entire side of World Showcase.
 

Ismael Flores

Well-Known Member
You don't think it's possible for someone to find Mary Blair's art a tad saccharine? Really? I promise I'm 100% sincere. Mary Blair makes my teeth hurt.
You are not the only one that feels that way. I have a few friends that hated the Mary Blair art and were glad when the mosaics in tomorrowland were covered.
 

Phroobar

Well-Known Member
This ride system is a compelling experience.

When The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror first burst onto the scene, it completely redefined the drop ride experience. Instead of being an attraction that relied on physical sensation alone, it was suddenly equipped to be a storytelling device. Instead of the drop being the experience, the drop became part of an experience. Part of a story.

This whole ride system followed the same path roller coasters did before it. Before Matterhorn, roller coaster attractions relied on the most basic sensations to create an experience. After Matterhorn (and especially after Walt's Space Mountain) roller coasters were empowered. They could tell amazing stories.

Splash Mountain did much the same with flumes. Though I'd be remiss if not to mention there was Story in some flumes before Splash Mountain, but the scale and complexity pushed boundaries.

All of this to say, what limit is there on a certain ride system? Why must a storytelling drop Tower be constrained into a narrow box? Why can't a new team come in using an existing ride concept and create a story just as compelling or even better than the first? Why isn't it possible for Joe and his team to push boundaries within an existing structure?

What would be different if Joe and his team were building a drop tower from scratch? Maybe some of the architectural forms on exterior, but largely it would be similiar. A drop Tower.

Now it is conceivable that they wouldn't have chosen a drop Tower as the preferred medium, which is reasonable. That is what they were dealt though. They're now working with this framework and are completely rethinking the core ideas. They're telling the most radically different Disney drop Tower story yet.

This ride very well could be as detailed as the original. Why can't it? Why can't the same level of thought and care be put into this project?

What makes this different?

I know a lot of people don't adore Guardians of the Galaxy, myself included, but Joe Rohde and his team absolutely can knock this out of the park. They absolutely are putting the same level of care and thought into this project as any other project.

There's a certain irony that many of the most ardent Avatar defenders (and I would describe myself as one of the fiercest of the Avatar opposition) are decrying this move, even as these two projects bear a surprising resemblance. Sci-fi where there should be more fantasy (fantasy of Hollywood no less). Aliens where it should be about people. Hottest IP when it should have been more about originality.

I'll be the first to say that this project's placement stinks. This is not optimal. Just like Avatar's placement still upsets me. I'll still appreciate the level of care and detail put into these projects though. I still will enjoy myself in the two areas.

This ride has been extensively thought out. It will absolutely push storytelling boundaries at Disney California Adventure. It may be the most meaningful attraction at DCA.

They've infused it with meaning. Everyone's laughed at this notion, but no one has rebutted it.

That's because it's actually the message.

Oh, and while I'm posting, @MonkeyHead next time you share my content link me to it so I can see your delightful commentary!:p:cool: ;)
Your on your last pill aren't you?
 

egg

Well-Known Member
Your on your last pill aren't you?
Then I'll gladly refill his prescription.

Because in a thread that's almost reached 4000 posts, DDLand's are more in-depth and through-provoking than at least 99% of those. Look, I too am not a fan of the change at its core. Neither is DDLand. But rather than blowing the whole thing off with short snarky comments, he's thinking about it and explaining his thoughts. And I have to appreciate that.

I can't appreciate people who constantly exclaim "ewww my eyes are bleeding!" or "OMG I love this to the moon and back!" without ever once explaining why they love it or what they would've done differently.
EDIT: I'm not talking about you in particular.
 
Last edited:

raven24

Well-Known Member
I can't appreciate people who constantly exclaim "ewww my eyes are bleeding!" or "OMG I love this to the moon and back!" without ever once explaining why they love it or what they would've done differently.
Everyone in this thread has gone into detail as to why they're for or against this project.
 

egg

Well-Known Member
Everyone in this thread has gone into detail as to why they're for or against this project.
For or against the project in general, sure. "Everyone" is an exaggeration, but you are right that most have. But for or against the look of the exterior, not as many. I've read through this whole thing and I honestly don't know what certain people would rather.

For starters, what would you rather the exterior look like?
 

raven24

Well-Known Member
For or against the project in general, sure. "Everyone" is an exaggeration, but you are right that most have. But for or against the look of the exterior, not as many. I've read through this whole thing and I honestly don't know what certain people would rather.

For starters, what would you rather the exterior look like?
I thought you were talking about the project in general.

The facade is loud, and the colors make it look tacky. I would have gone for something for suttle without the extra "props" like the pipes. I would have chosen darker colors, like black, purple, and blue.
 

egg

Well-Known Member
I thought you were talking about the project in general.

The facade is loud, and the colors make it look tacky. I would have gone for something for suttle without the extra "props" like the pipes. I would have chosen darker colors, like black, purple, and blue.
Ah, okay. I like it. I can envision that. Thank you.

Now I'll go. While I do find it more obtrusive than other ideas would've, I generally like the direction they went regarding the look. But I'll skip the positives and head to where I think it falls short.

My biggest issue is that the theming dies beyond the front of the building. The front is cluttered with pipes and other stuff, as though the collector is short on space, yet the sides have none.... what's with that? I get that the front is the most visible and photographed part, but that's no excuse to almost neglect the sides. The tower should look good from any angle.
I also don't understand the black stripe on the front. Maybe it'll make sense, maybe there's some effect we don't know about. But I'm willing to bet that's not the case.
And finally, I don't like that some of it, especially the pipes, looks brand spanking new, yet the bottom looks worn, faded, and blackened and dirty in some parts. Is the tower old or new? Or does the Collector have a very uneven and unorganized maintainance department like my local Six Flags's.

That's all I've got, at least at this stage. Anyone else who wants to go, please do.
 

raven24

Well-Known Member
Ah, okay. I like it. I can envision that. Thank you.

Now I'll go. While I do find it more obtrusive than other ideas would've, I generally like the direction they went regarding the look. But I'll skip the positives and head to where I think it falls short.

My biggest issue is that the theming dies beyond the front of the building. The front is cluttered with pipes and other stuff, as though the collector is short on space, yet the sides have none.... what's with that? I get that the front is the most visible and photographed part, but that's no excuse to almost neglect the sides. The tower should look good from any angle.
I also don't understand the black stripe on the front. Maybe it'll make sense, maybe there's some effect we don't know about. But I'm willing to bet that's not the case.
And finally, I don't like that some of it, especially the pipes, looks brand spanking new, yet the bottom looks worn, faded, and blackened and dirty in some parts. Is the tower old or new? Or does the Collector have a very uneven and unorganized maintainance department like my local Six Flags's.

That's all I've got, at least at this stage. Anyone else who wants to go, please do.
I agree, why does the bottom part look aged? And yeah, it should look nice from any angle. I really hate the backside, mainly because I hate the color palettes that were chosen.

I think the biggest issue, in terms of the facade/building, is the fact that Disney was too lazy to take down the original bones and come up with and construct something brand new. If I were an Imagineer, I would have been frustrated if I had been told to come up with a structure themed to GotG, but had to re-design the ToT building and not come up with my own design.
 
Top Bottom