Guardians of the Galaxy Mission Breakout announced for Disney California Adventure

[SuddenStorm]

Technical and storytelling concerns weren't part of the rationale for this change. I understand the desire to caste this as somehow a creative choice, one based on well founded arguments and made by people with an interested in technical innovation and powerful storytelling, but it simply wasn't. This was a marketing decision.



I understand if you like this attraction - many people will - but it is rather explicitly not intended to promote nostalgia or emotional attachment. It is intended to promote the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise.

I'm not for this change- I'm more neutral. I was never attached to the Tower, and haven't mourned its loss.

I completely agree that this was a marketing decision, done cheap, and that the imagineers were forced by corporate to make this change. But I see no reason why budget upgrades can't be an opportunity to change this ride for the better, especially when the original was already built on a tight budget. The Imagineers have all the knowledge of the last decade, as well as a decade of technological advancements that can go into MB.

I think I should have clarified what I meant about the nostalgia and emotional attachment. This new iteration of the MB will have to be better than ToT in every way- in addition to being better than our emotional attachment to ToT, the original Tower. Of course they wouldn't build a new ride to promote nostalgia- my point is that this new ride will have to be good enough to overcome the attachment many Disney fans have to ToT, since they'll be viewing it more skeptically, and more negatively, than they would have otherwise.

 

[Californian Elitist]

The tower looks photoshopped onto the old building. Like when they do those April Fools jokes, except, you know, it's not a joke anymore

Exactly. It looks like a gigantic computer chip, while the classy and cute Trolley passes by. SMH.

 

[SuddenStorm]

This thread is just going in circles now. Opening can't come soon enough- then we can see if the ride is as bad as the outside, or if its one of those "more beautiful on the inside" type things.

 

[October82]

I completely agree that this was a marketing decision, done cheap, and that the imagineers were forced by corporate to make this change. But I see no reason why budget upgrades can't be an opportunity to change this ride for the better, especially when the original was already built on a tight budget. The Imagineers have all the knowledge of the last decade, as well as a decade of technological advancements that can go into MB.

The problem is that this is trying to rationalize a fundamentally irrational (at least from the point of view of theme and storytelling) decision. Disney is extraordinarily unlikely to revisit this in the near future, certainly not to pursue substantive technical upgrades. There is no evidence of any technical improvements being made in moving from ToT to GotG.

I think I should have clarified what I meant about the nostalgia and emotional attachment. This new iteration of the MB will have to be better than ToT in every way- in addition to being better than our emotional attachment to ToT, the original Tower. Of course they wouldn't build a new ride to promote nostalgia- my point is that this new ride will have to be good enough to overcome the attachment many Disney fans have to ToT, since they'll be viewing it more skeptically, and more negatively, than they would have otherwise.

Fair enough.

 

[PiratesoftheHM]

Frozstrom.

As much as people want to believe it, the general public did not lament the loss of Maelstrom. Comparing TOT and Maelstrom is beyond silly. The Facebook (a prime example of non-hardcore fan, but casual fan audience) comments during the shutdown and even still are more negative than they have ever been for any Disney project. Once again not saying entirely negative as the people here will try to poke one hole in my argument and ignore the rest, but they are more negative than anything this decade.

 

[SuddenStorm]

The problem is that this is trying to rationalize a fundamentally irrational (at least from the point of view of theme and storytelling) decision. Disney is extraordinarily unlikely to revisit this in the near future, certainly not to pursue substantive technical upgrades. There is no evidence of any technical improvements being made in moving from ToT to GotG.

They just filed a permit a few days ago to improve the audio system. They're introducing random ride profiles.

I'd bet money that they're improving the in ride effects as well.

While they certainly aren't going to do as much as they would building a new attraction from scratch, and whether the upgrades justify completely changing the tower is up for debate (most likely they won't, unless the storytelling and overall ride experience is improved enough), it's foolish to think that Disney wouldn't have spent the last few months improving the decade old technology and effects present in the original tower.

Yes, they're doing this cheap. They're doing it quickly. But this new ride is going to be Disney's first showing of what they can do with the Marvel IP in CA, and has a lot of really talented people working on it, so I have faith that Disney's making sure this will be up to 2017 Disney standards.

Or, it will be a huge misfire, rejected by fans, and will force Disney to change their future plans for DCA. I'm just trying to remain open to the possibility of this ride being good.

 

[BrianLo]

As much as people want to believe it, the general public did not lament the loss of Maelstrom. Comparing TOT and Maelstrom is beyond silly. The Facebook (a prime example of non-hardcore fan, but casual fan audience) comments during the shutdown and even still are more negative than they have ever been for any Disney project. Once again not saying entirely negative as the people here will try to poke one hole in my argument and ignore the rest, but they are more negative than anything this decade.

That's true. I just meant the sentiment on the boards was probably about the same mixed bag as it is for this ride. Not over what came before, but what was inevitably coming.

I think the GP lamented the loss of the tower because they thought the tower was actually going. This is essentially the same ride and I expect the GP to react accordingly.

Whether we like it or not here, I think you'll be on the wrong end if you think it won't be incredibly popular.

 

[vancee]

View attachment 205537

Mamma Mia, is that sexy or what?

 

[October82]

They just filed a permit a few days ago to improve the audio system. They're introducing random ride profiles.

I'd bet money that they're improving the in ride effects as well.

No one is saying that there aren't *any* changes being made, and indeed, minor technical upgrades, but we're not going to see major changes to the attraction after it opens. Maybe that's not what you meant, but this is a common claim that has been made and it just isn't going to happen with the way Disney spends in the parks today.

Incidentally, "Random drop profiles" weren't implemented on the DCA ToT, but my understanding is that this wasn't for technical reasons.

Yes, they're doing this cheap. They're doing it quickly. But this new ride is going to be Disney's first showing of what they can do with the Marvel IP in CA, and has a lot of really talented people working on it, so I have faith that Disney's making sure this will be up to 2017 Disney standards.

Again, I understand the tendency to want this to succeed, but there simply isn't evidence of major investment or changes here. If you look at the history of this project, there isn't room for optimism. The kinds of changes that have been made are akin to the maintenance that attractions see after a decade of use. Improved projections, new audio, and the like.

Or, it will be a huge misfire, rejected by fans, and will force Disney to change their future plans for DCA. I'm just trying to remain open to the possibility of this ride being good.

We know exactly what we're getting here. It will be exactly as advertised and as delivered. It probably won't fail. It is a thematic mess. It isn't going to be a fundamentally new or innovative attraction.

 

[nevol]

I think the GP lamented the loss of the tower because they thought the tower was actually going. This is essentially the same ride and I expect the GP to react accordingly.

No, people grew up with the hollywood tower hotel and twilight zone tower of terror, and they can visit the park and see with their own eyes what they perceive to be an abomination. The position of your argument is that all will be relieved when people realize their bodies can still be flung up and down in an elevator shaft. That assumes that the utility of the ride is the ride system. That is an entirely one-sided perspective. The opposite of which is that the utility of the ride (what it delivers, what people get out of it, what people desire from it) is entirely about the experience of the hotel, the suspense, the jazz and the mood of the place and the twilight zone theme song. I would argue that to many people, those far outweigh the utility that you value, which is the drop profile, the sensation of just being flung around. However, the truth is somewhere in the middle, which nobody seems to understand, and most people wont simply feel relief when they see that the building that was once the hollywood tower hotel was repainted and decorated in a cheap halloween costume to promote some movie franchise that's been hot for a few months.

 

[D.Silentu]

I've been looking at videos of the tower now that it's been lit and that flashing doodad on the roof caught my attention. It reminded me of something and it took me days to figure out what. It brings to my mind the strobe light on top of the Maliboomer! Not yet sure what to make of this connection.

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

I think the beetle bug bumper car ride under the striped umbrella in Flik's Fun Fair and the perimeter road they use to force arriving customers onto to make them park at GardenWalk and Pumbaa are the real big issues with that map. Those two things are important, for one reason or another.

But the four buildings along the right are the most expendable. They are cheap metal-sided construction thrown up in a hurry back in 2009. Whatever they house can be moved, as the Disneyland Resort obviously operated without them until 2010. The kitchen equipment and maintenance tools are the most valuable stuff in those buildings, and kitchen equipment and tools can be moved to a new building. The office furniture and the piano and sound equipment in a rehearsal hall can be moved too.

The banquet kitchen should stay onsite. Why not over at the Disneyland Hotel somewhere? Build a basement level of Marvel Land for costume storage, even rehearsal halls or maintenance garages. Much of that stuff could move anywhere within a mile or two of the parks, and there are many warehouses, office buildings and light industrial buildings a few blocks east of Disneyland that could be used.

Tearing down these green pre-fab buildings would equate to a tiny portion of the trouble and expense they went to for Star Wars Land.

Back in the 1990's and early 2000's Disney built things very cheaply and just kept gobbling up the surface parking lots surrounding the parks because it was the cheapest way to do it. You can move kitchens and offices and rehearsal halls anywhere, it just costs more than using cheap pre-fab construction in the old Tigger Section of the Disneyland Parking Lot.

Much of your point is good. However, I think you don't understand the nature of the facilities in question. These are not back storage that could be relocated off-site. Everything of that nature already has been. The costuming space is for DAILY issue for live talent and characters. I have known people working in various aspects of the entertainment division going back decades. The rehearsal hall is primarily for the use of DCA's entertainment offerings, along with music education programs and guest talent (my nephew's intermediate school orchestra had a session there.

I completely agree about how these facilities could have been incorporated better so they had a smaller footprint on DCA's scant acreage. If they're able to close the outmost perimeter road on the south boundary to guest traffic after the east parking structure opens, this will offer some added options.

 

[TP2000]

I work with a big Disney fan. She LOVES Disneyland. I just informed her of this change last week. She hadn't heard about it.

I have college age nieces and nephews; smart, fun, athletic, trendy, they live on their iPhones. They had no idea when I brought it up at a Mother's Day brunch last Sunday. Neither of them watch much TV, and their household cut the cable cord last year and they just do Internet streaming. I can't imagine college dorms and fraternity houses are paying for cable TV nowadays either. I'm almost ready to cut the cord myself.

The TV commercials for Guardians have been clever and well done, but they're being played to a dwindling and aging TV viewing audience watching the networks who aren't theme park people.

 

[TP2000]

I completely agree about how these facilities could have been incorporated better so they had a smaller footprint on DCA's scant acreage. If they're able to close the outmost perimeter road on the south boundary to guest traffic after the east parking structure opens, this will offer some added options.

They just need to build basements. Gosh, maybe even a few Utilidors, which would be cheaper and easier in Anaheim's sandy soil than Orlando's swamp. Those green pre-fab buildings are the epitome of cheap construction, likely barely rated to handle 7.5 earthquakes and minor tornadoes. The contents of each building costs more than the building itself. They can be replaced quite easily with a basement, it's just going to cost a few million more than a pre-fab metal building would for the same square footage.

A financial reminder: For Fiscal 2017 Second Quarter, January-March '17, the net income (pure after-tax profit) for the Parks & Resorts division of the Walt Disney Company increased 20% to $750 Million. In three months. For just the Parks division. And Easter fell in mid April this year, so March was slower than normal at the theme parks and cruise ships. $750 Million.

They can afford to build a basement.

 

[TP2000]

This thread is just going in circles now. Opening can't come soon enough- then we can see if the ride is as bad as the outside, or if its one of those "more beautiful on the inside" type things.

No kidding. I'm amazed at how many people have all these opinions about a ride no one has been on, or even seen the inside of. It could be really good and an improvement over the getting-kinda-hokey-in-2017 Tower of Terror ride experience. (Sorry, that 2004 tech using 1994 media wasn't aging well by the late 2010's. And that '94 mullet on the tuxedo guy in the elevator was bugging me more by the year!)

Or, this new ride could be complete junk. Who knows?

Not even your hairdresser knows for sure, because no one has ridden it.

 

[Travel Junkie]

No kidding. I'm amazed at how many people have all these opinions about a ride no one has been on, or even seen the inside of.

The ride isn't being debated. It's placement and outward appearance is. I agree that the thread is going in circles because people have come to their conclusions on the matter.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They just filed a permit a few days ago to improve the audio system. They're introducing random ride profiles.

The random ride profiles have been available since the ride opened. They were just not used because the thinking was that they could later be switched on as part of a marketing gimmick. Random profiles were also already old hat in Florida when the attraction opened.

They just need to build basements. Gosh, maybe even a few Utilidors, which would be cheaper and easier in Anaheim's sandy soil than Orlando's swamp. Those green pre-fab buildings are the epitome of cheap construction, likely barely rated to handle 7.5 earthquakes and minor tornadoes. The contents of each building costs more than the building itself. They can be replaced quite easily with a basement, it's just going to cost a few million more than a pre-fab metal building would for the same square footage.

A financial reminder: For Fiscal 2017 Second Quarter, January-March '17, the net income (pure after-tax profit) for the Parks & Resorts division of the Walt Disney Company increased 20% to $750 Million. In three months. For just the Parks division. And Easter fell in mid April this year, so March was slower than normal at the theme parks and cruise ships. $750 Million.

They can afford to build a basement.

Build a basement under what? Ride systems can have massive foundations or their own basements. There are also limitations on size, location, adjacency and daylight requirements based on occupancy type. Basements are not done because they are so much more expensive and complicated.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Does DL have the place to build one or more several story buildings for on-site backstage stuff? They could make the facade facing the park something thematic for the place it's located (other than a cartoonish solid blue with stenciled clouds).

 

[Rich T]

I guess this community has decided to debate this forever huh?

It's one thing to have a negative emotional reaction to something and another to repeatedly express feelings that verge on anger and/or frustration. Anonymous online commenters so quick to complain benefit from the fact that, in most instances, there's no way they will be identifiable happily waiting in line when it opens. If you are so bothered by the direction the parks are headed I dare you to cease giving The WDCo your hard earned money and quit your Disneyland habit.

We'll see how the public responds. If it ends up being a flop I'll eat my mouse ears.

But this is a theme park forum. Complaining endlessly is what happens. I get aggravated when I see Disney execs making tone-deaf decisions, but I know when I post I often sound angrier than I really am. I think the new Tower is the ugliest thing this side of the rotting Peoplemover tracks. That's as far as my issue goes.

And as far as not giving WDCo my money, the process has already begun. I used to visit DL two or three times a year (for decades) and I've bought an embarrassing amount of souvenirs. It's now been two years since my last trip, and I have no burning desire to go back or buy a single Disney product beyond a digital purchase of a movie I like. I'm sure as heck not returning just to see MB. I still love what's great about the parks, and I'm curious to see Star Wars Land, but I've reached a point where my good memories of the place--and all the inspiration I've gotten there--are enough for a while. I've mentioned this before, but the parks have reached a point where the "business" side of DL is becoming so visible, ruthless and in-your-face obnoxious that the illusion they're selling is getting less and less effective. The balance is off.

 

[Rich T]

...If they weren't 100% convinced that altering the Tower would be the best thing for DCA, they wouldn't have done it.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.