Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: BREAKOUT! Reviews, Photos, Info

[MisterPenguin]

By the way here is his reaction video after riding it. He was basically speechless for the first part of the video saying over and over its intense. You can tell in his initial reaction he didn't want to like it but does. He also had to think real hard about wanting to answer if in his opinion its better to ToT or not. He took the easy way out and just said it was a different experience and was awesome.

Hater's jus' gonna hate hatin'.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Yep when you use the same formula over and over it becomes too safe and boring. You lose creativity and become stale. You have to break out of that formula mold and try something new and I believe they did it hear and with Pandora. I hope, and from what I can see they are doing it, that Star Wars Land will push the envelope even further with immersive lands. I wait with excitement that the additional Marvel offerings to come into DCA will also push the envelope as well.

Where exactly is the creativity with IP-based attractions and lands, in comparison to original concepts?

 

[Californian Elitist]

Not you, but there were a few posters who thought the angry YouTube comments would translate to the ride being rejected, boycotted and converted back or torn down. I argued this would be a Frozen situation, whose low expectations would give way to a pleasant surprise. I think the Frozen situation is very apt, the outrage peeked and suddenly the whole narrative has reversed.

Like Frozen this is not to say none of the things people were concerned with were invalid... both have placement concerns, Frozen has serious capacity issues and Guardians has serious exterior controversy, but both critically wound up surprise hits.

I've been on the more pro stance, but even I admittedly am surprised that things were way better on the interior than I thought they'd be. Really did not expect that rocket AA, it's brilliant. I just saw at the end that he reaches down into the glass case to grab Peter's Walkman. That's honestly the type of thing I've only seen in Mystic Manor and a reason I love that ride so much. As an AA fan that single pre show room is quite possibly in the running for best all time pre shows. Much better than the surround sound audio to pretend Rocket was in the vents that I believed they'd pull. Much better than Eisner era 'overlays'.

I never saw such YouTube comments.

The ride itself looks fun, and the Rocket AA is probably the best I've seen ever, but I can't ignore its horrible placement. But the so-called fans, AKA general public, doesn't care about consistency and the role of theme in theme parks, so this is what we will continue to get.

 

[Disney Irish]

Where exactly is the creativity with IP-based attractions and lands, in comparison to original concepts?

The creativity is in using the IP to tell a story in a different medium then its source, ie the theme park and attractions.

 

[Disney Irish]

I never saw such YouTube comments.

All you have to do is go look at the original announcement video on the Disney Parks YouTube page.

The ride itself looks fun, and the Rocket AA is probably the best I've seen ever, but I can't ignore its horrible placement. But the so-called fans, AKA general public, doesn't care about consistency and the role of theme in theme parks, so this is what we will continue to get.

The placement will likely make sense after D23 or whenever the rest of the Marvel projects for DCA get announced.

I haven't seen the new maps but from what I gather from the press previews GotG is now in its own land. It is no longer meant to be part of HollywoodLand. So it in itself is a transition into the Marvel universe within DCA. The way Joe R. describes it there will be a physical line on the street where guests can see this transition.

 

[Californian Elitist]

The creativity is in using the IP to tell a story in a different medium then its source, ie the theme park and attractions.

Hhmm... But how is that more creative than coming up with something wholly fresh?

I would argue building IP-based lands and attractions is playing things safe and not the other way around. The material is already there and people are familiar with the content and are most likely automatically going to enjoy the offerings because, as stated, it already exists, especially something popular.

Cars Land and Car Land are great examples. Cars Land is just that, a replica of Radiator Springs from Cars and attractions based on the movie. A team of people working on a land based on California car culture is going to have more room to work with vs a team of people working on a land based on the movie Cars. Let's not forget long-term... Anything new coming to Cars Land in the future has to be based on something from the movie, or movies. California car culture is so much more of a broad idea and would have had a shorter list of limits. But it we have Radiator Springs to look at for years and years to come. Excellent.

 

[Californian Elitist]

All you have to do is go look at the original announcement video on the Disney Parks YouTube page.



The placement will likely make sense after D23 or whenever the rest of the Marvel projects for DCA get announced.

I haven't seen the new maps but from what I gather from the press previews GotG is now in its own land. It is no longer meant to be part of HollywoodLand. So it in itself is a transition into the Marvel universe within DCA. The way Joe R. describes it there will be a physical line on the street where guests can see this transition.

But then we get into the subject of Marvel having nothing realistically to do with California...

 

[Curious Constance]

Not to interrupt but, if anyone happens to find themselves standing in front of the Howard the Duck plush, would you be so kind as to check the price for me?

Trying to convince my son that if he buys him and three others, he'll have spent all of his money in one spot.

 

[Disney Irish]

Hhmm... But how is that more creative than coming up with something wholly fresh?

I would argue building IP-based lands and attractions is playing things safe and not the other way around. The material is already there and people are familiar with the content and are most likely automatically going to enjoy the offerings because, as stated, it already exists, especially something popular.

Cars Land and Car Land are great examples. Cars Land is just that, a replica of Radiator Springs from Cars and attractions based on the movie. A team of people working on a land based on California car culture is going to have more room to work with vs a team of people working on a land based on the movie Cars. Let's not forget long-term... Anything new coming to Cars Land in the future has to be based on something from the movie, or movies. California car culture is so much more of a broad idea and would have had a shorter list of limits. But it we have Radiator Springs to look at for years and years to come. Excellent.

The foreseeable future for theme parks as we've seen is more intense and immersive lands and attractions. While original content (wholly born within the theme park) can be immersive, its not always going to be a success. So that is where the business side comes in, using IP that you know will at least draw in the crowds. Its a marriage of using the IP for familiarity and the immersiveness of the new offerings that make them a success.

Your example of Car Land is a perfect one. While it may appeal to a certain section of the public who are into the car culture it may not appeal to the larger public. And that is again where the business come in. What is going to bring more of the public into an area of the park. An area about the car culture of California or Radiator Springs? I heard plenty of people while standing in line for Racers say things like, "Hey I don't like the Cars movies, but I love how immersive it is and feels like you are in the actual movie".

Also the Cars universe is not just Radiator Springs. Its also Planes and that franchise. While it didn't do as well as Cars it is a creative direction they can go and still be within the Cars universe.

But then we get into the subject of Marvel having nothing realistically to do with California...

And as we've seen they are moving away from the idea of DCA being about California the location as the theme. Which makes sense, because they were locked into a concept that was way too limiting in my opinion. Now they can bring worlds into DCA that allow for greater creativity because you don't have to tie it back to California the location.

 

[FigmentForver96]

Having Figment in there just rubs me the wrong way. Harold fine, I hate the self referencing crap but whatever. The park is across the street. But having a character from a classic attraction from the east coast seems like pandering to the Disney geeks. I don't know how to put it into words, maybe someone else can.

 

[sedati]

Where exactly is the creativity with IP-based attractions and lands, in comparison to original concepts?

Think of an original (which few if anything actually is, but that's a whole other discussion) attraction as similar to a pilot episode of a television show. The idea may be fresh, but they tend to be somewhat awkward and simplistic. Casts haven't gotten their chemistry yet, plots haven't had time to mature. Mostly it's just an introduction and a basic set.
Once that's out of the way, a whole lot more can happen. The audience has a familiarity, so there can be less hand holding. The story can build and be layered from what had come before. Like many sequels, the direction can be disappointing, but there is actually a great freedom in being a second act.
To use an example from the much maligned Frozen ride at Epcot. The end scene is a sweet vignette where the two sisters hold hands while they sing along with their friend. From a ride only standpoint this probably just seems like some pleasant filler to end the ride and prepare you to disembark. I'm not sure you would even know the girls were sisters. But if you've seen the movie there's the added depth of having gone through their estrangement and seeing how they eventually came to being so close. I'm not sure any ride has ended on such a note, or if it could without an existing backstory.

 

[Californian Elitist]

The foreseeable future for theme parks as we've seen is more intense and immersive lands and attractions. While original content (wholly born within the theme park) can be immersive, its not always going to be a success. So that is where the business side comes in, using IP that you know will at least draw in the crowds. Its a marriage of using the IP for familiarity and the immersiveness of the new offerings that make them a success.

Your example of Car Land is a perfect one. While it may appeal to a certain section of the public who are into the car culture it may not appeal to the larger public. And that is again where the business come in. What is going to bring more of the public into an area of the park. An area about the car culture of California or Radiator Springs? I heard plenty of people while standing in line for Racers say things like, "Hey I don't like the Cars movies, but I love how immersive it is and feels like you are in the actual movie".

Also the Cars universe is not just Radiator Springs. Its also Planes and that franchise. While it didn't do as well as Cars it is a creative direction they can go and still be within the Cars universe.

And as we've seen they are moving away from the idea of DCA being about California the location as the theme. Which makes sense, because they were locked into a concept that was way too limiting in my opinion. Now they can bring worlds into DCA that allow for greater creativity because you don't have to tie it back to California the location.

You just reiterated my point that IP-based lands and attractions are safer choices.

Disneyland has survived six decades without IP-based lands. Would you say people don't like Disneyland because the lands aren't based on single IPs? No, right? I wouldn't call Adventureland, New Orleans Square, Frontierland, etc. unsuccessful. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that people don't like original concepts. Look at Pirates, Mansion, Thunder Mountain, etc. Are these attractions not considered classics? Do they not draw in crowds?

You can't say a land based on California car culture wouldn't have brought in crowds without something to back it up. You THINK it wouldn't have drawn in crowds, which I don't believe would have been the case at all. Disneylanders have proven again and again that if you throw anything at them, they'll show up. I think of the the Golden Horseshoe tribute Disneyland put on some years ago. That was incredibly popular and it wasn't tied to an IP. The Dixie event the park put on for annual passholders also comes to mind. Car Land didn't even have a chance to come to fruition, and I fear any other land that isn't based on an IP will have the same fate.

Planes is still a single IP. And let's be honest, the chances of us seeing anything from Planes in Cars Land are probably slim to none.

It doesn't make sense at all, especially since Disney recently went through a five-year process to incorporate more California into the park, fantasized or not. How is California limiting, but Cars isn't? California is arguably the most diverse state in the Union, with rich history. The park hasn't touched multiple aspects of California. I'm curious, did you grow up in California? If so, remember all of that California history we learned in elementary school? California opens itself up for a VAST array of ideas to pull from, but guests tend to accept mediocrity nowadays, and now a land themed to MARVEL will be going into CALIFORNIA Adventure. But who cares? Marvel is cool and will make the company plenty of money. What then is the point of the theme park?

 

[Deleted member 107043]

By the way here is his reaction video after riding it. He was basically speechless for the first part of the video saying over and over its intense. You can tell in his initial reaction he didn't want to like it but does. He also had to think real hard about wanting to answer if in his opinion its better to ToT or not. He took the easy way out and just said it was a different experience and was awesome.

What a jackass.

So who's going to give me my half churro?

 

[BrianLo]

Where exactly is the creativity with IP-based attractions and lands, in comparison to original concepts?

Pirates of the Caribbean in Shanghai is quite possibly the best attraction in the world, highly creative, reinvents what we thought possible with an attraction and is a real boon to what modern WDI can dream up if given the reigns and budget.

The hilarious thing is not only is it a rip off of an original, it's dripping with intellectual property.

The two (IP and creativity) are not mutually exclusive it turns out!

Hhmm... But how is that more creative than coming up with something wholly fresh?

This I'm not arguing... obviously using IP is not more creative than doing something original. Your implication and often the implication on the board is that if IP is used it's not creative at all. Original is not leaps and bounds superior, as is often implied directly or with subtlety here. I think that's what Rohde addresses: the moral superiority of a story does not come from where it started. As long as Disney doesn't give us book reports, that's where story creativity falls off. Even still a ride can be creative even if the story is a rehash in some instances.

 

[TP2000]

By the way here is his reaction video after riding it. He was basically speechless for the first part of the video saying over and over its intense. You can tell in his initial reaction he didn't want to like it but does. He also had to think real hard about wanting to answer if in his opinion its better to ToT or not. He took the easy way out and just said it was a different experience and was awesome.

That's hysterical how fast he changed his tune. One ride on opening day, and he's been converted. Funny how that happens.

And this guy is like the poster child for Neckbeard Bloggers everywhere. If this guy - who spent 10 minutes video blogging his Tower of Terror Is Closing! nerd-rage from a Marriott hotel room at ComicCon 2016 - can be totally thrilled and entertained by Mission: Breakout... can you imagine how much fun the average tourist family from Boise will have on this thing?

I know I certainly enjoyed my two rides this morning. It's a really unique and different E Ticket for Disneyland Resort, extremely well done and technologically impressive, and a heckuva lot of fun. With an awesome soundtrack to boot.

And Dusty Sage from Micechat has also changed his tune after riding? Color me... not surprised.

 

[dweezil78]

Having Figment in there just rubs me the wrong way. Harold fine, I hate the self referencing crap but whatever. The park is across the street. But having a character from a classic attraction from the east coast seems like pandering to the Disney geeks. I don't know how to put it into words, maybe someone else can.

He's borderline invisible it's so hard to see him. And what's wrong with pandering to to Disney geeks? I think people often loose sight of the fact that most Imagineers started off as (and continue to be) crazy Disney geeks. Putting a little figment in a cage and other nods and winks like that are thrown in by people like us, not decisions that are made by boardrooms full of suits.

 

[TP2000]

Having Figment in there just rubs me the wrong way. Harold fine, I hate the self referencing crap but whatever. The park is across the street. But having a character from a classic attraction from the east coast seems like pandering to the Disney geeks. I don't know how to put it into words, maybe someone else can.

I know what you mean. I LOVED this ride, but the Harold figure is pushing boundaries. The Figment figure is just obvious pandering.

They are trying too hard by including Figment.

 

[dweezil78]

Hhmm... But how is that more creative than coming up with something wholly fresh?

It's all in the execution IMO. Attractions not based on existing IP can also be good (Journey Into Imagination) but can also be bad too (Journey Into Imagination with Figment).

Aside from Mystic Manor, IASW, and Journey, I'd be pretty hard pressed to find many Disney attractions that are totally original ideas and would work on today's audiences if they didn't have 50 years of nostalgia working for them.

Like I said in another post, most of what you'd consider to be "wholly fresh" is still pretty derivative of existing IP -- either that or it's based on history/fact/real locations, is a mode of transportation, or is so incredibly vague story-wise it really doesn't matter. Never built concepts don't count... they were never built for a reason.

 

[Kiwiduck]

Ya, but he is just burnt out, which is sad because there is a lot more excitement happening these days than his years of coverage.


Also... Rohde finally mic drops. The controversy is over, there is no subtext. He's proud of his work and was on board.

https://t.co/sUaFA8q4Kk?amp=1

Oh, so the Guardians tower is not actually covered in symbols as a big middle finger to the Bobs then as Micechat theorised. Good to know.
Joe Rohde is a popular man at the moment. Some people have held a big earing party in his honour!

 

[Disney Irish]

Pirates of the Caribbean in Shanghai is quite possibly the best attraction in the world, highly creative, reinvents what we thought possible with an attraction and is a real boon to what modern WDI can dream up if given the reigns and budget.

The hilarious thing is not only is it a rip off of an original, it's dripping with intellectual property.

The two (IP and creativity) are not mutually exclusive it turns out!



This I'm not arguing... obviously using IP is not more creative than doing something original. Your implication and often the implication on the board is that if IP is used it's not creative at all. Original is not leaps and bounds superior, as is often implied directly or with subtlety here. I think that's what Rohde addresses: the moral superiority of a story does not come from where it started. As long as Disney doesn't give us book reports, that's where story creativity falls off. Even still a ride can be creative even if the story is a rehash in some instances.

Very well put and exactly my points.

This idea of an us vs them when it comes to IP vs Original is silly. It shouldn't matter the source material. As long as it's executed well and in an entertaining way the appeals to the public is all that should matter.

And just point of fact for others, I was born, raised, and live in the Bay Area. I took and have experienced California history and places in school and real life. I don't need to experience that same history or locations in a theme park. That's what museums and going to the real locations are for lol.