Disney begins recruiting Cast Members to open 'Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind' at EPCOT

flynnibus9 minutes ago

Meh - it suffered a common thing as much of EPCOT... It lost it's uniqueness as other venues got better and the lack of updates snowballed into horrible dated experiences. Other facilities around the country got better. They got bigger, they were more interactive, they got more impressive. Seas was stagnant and just lost more and more of it's EPCOT experience and just became more and more just a big aquarium. I loved that place as a teen.. but it's window of glory was damn short :(

James Alucobond11 minutes ago

You're comparing a functional animatronic to a non-functional one. The point @FerretAfros was making wasn't that it should've been in permanent B-mode but rather that the complexity (and cost of maintenance) should have matched the length of time it would be seen. There were ways to achieve a similar effect without pouring massive amounts of money into it and making it into an absolute maintenance nightmare. And because it's an overly expensive fleeting vision, the creators put it in a position where neglect was more likely than not.

DisneyDebRob30 minutes ago

Just a quick comment on the AA Yeti that you mentioned. I agree it was a blink and you missed it but what a few seconds. IMO the money that was spent on it was so worth it for those few seconds. The difference between then and now is night and day and in my opinion really takes away from the experience. For those riding it now and not having seen the original doesn’t know what they have missed. Besides, I enjoy Disney investing big money in something to blow us away. My problem is as soon as there’s a problem they usually decide not to keep it up, aka b mode.

FerretAfros1 hour ago

Just because something has a use does not mean that it isn't also wasteful. The two are not mutually exclusive. Watching Harmonious, it's not really clear what purpose the barges serve. Yes, the video boards, fountains, and moving arms are used in the show, but there's really nothing in the show that is so unique and specialized that it couldn't have been created in a different way. Unlike the earth barge in Illuminations, the dragon in Fantasmic!, or even the kites for the lame KiteTails "daytime activation", there's nothing to imply that this infrastructure was purpose-built for this show. It was incredibly expensive, but isn't utilized in a meaningful way. I'll use Everest as an example once again, not because it was a low-budget creation, but rather because of its extravagant spending. The yeti AA is a perfect example of wasteful spending: millions and millions of dollars were poured into a figure that could only be seen for a couple seconds of ride time. Even when the ride was brand new and everything worked perfectly, it was a blink-and-you-miss-it moment that was over in a flash. The same impact could have been made with a far cheaper figure that had a more limited range of motion; perhaps not as limited as the old Abominable Snowman on the Matterhorn, but not as complex as what got built. Guests speeding by in a dark cavern can only process so much in the 5 seconds that it's visible. In addition to saving construction costs, it almost certainly would have been a more reliable long-term solution with easier maintenance, to the point that its malfunction wouldn't be one of WDW's greatest ongoing embarrassments 15+ years later. I know that many people online like to denigrate "value engineering" as a simple cost-cutting measure, but that's not what it is at all: it's a way to ensure that the money you're spending is being used wisely. Is this function necessary? Is there another way to achieve the same goal that's less expensive? What are the lifecycle costs of the proposed solution? Are we being good stewards of the money we're given? Is there a way that we can get more for less? Many classic Imagineering tricks rely on fooling the eye into thinking there's more there than was actually built: it's the limited-motion figure that you pass so quickly that you think it's fully articulated; it's the window in the background, implying a world beyond the immediate scene; it's the painted flat backgrounds that are out of focus enough to make you think they're fully dimensional. It's like a striptease, keeping you interested in what's just barely out of view, inviting you to imagine a world of possibilities. These are the parlor tricks on which Disney Parks built their trade, and which are being sadly forgotten in the day of endless "immersion" where every element is elevated to a starring role and the backgrounds are devoid of detail as a result. In the case of the Harmonious barges, it's not really clear what their function is, or why they were built the way that they were. The arms flail around during the show, but don't have any real purpose. The fountains aren't especially expressive or impressive. The central ring is dark for a huge chunk of the show, can't be seen from the majority of the viewing areas, and has no reason for its shape or size. The lighting systems and video boards are fine I guess, but there are countless other ways to achieve those elements that are less obtrusive during the day. Even though all this was built specifically for Harmonious, the show doesn't feel like a natural fit for the unique infrastructure. In many ways, the show feels like it was designed around existing infrastructure that was left over from a previous show, rather than one designed from scratch with custom-made equipment. And for a very expensive purpose-built show that ruins daytime sightlines throughout the most scenic parts of the theme park, that's quite a damning indictment. I have no reason to believe that the Guardians coaster will be any less wasteful; in fact, with its massive budget and physical footprint for a single attraction, it seems even more likely.

egg2 hours ago

It’s a recent creation but I’m not sure it’s an incorrect one.

UNCgolf2 hours ago

Looking at the parks individually in a vacuum, yes, but I think at WDW it makes more sense to see what exists across all four parks as a whole. Most people that travel to WDW are going to visit every park. With that said, I'm not opposed to building more thrill based rides at EPCOT. I'd just prefer they be additions instead of replacements.

Casper Gutman3 hours ago

OK, fine! Although I don't feel as bad about this one, since it was 1975, just four years before BTM. Close enough for government work

doctornick3 hours ago

Also Space Mountain opened prior to BTMRR

Casper Gutman4 hours ago

You are correct! I forgot the Matterhorn. However, I think that both Matterhorn and BMT stretch the definition of "thrill ride" much more then a launch coaster in the dark does.

mergatroid4 hours ago

What about the Matterhorn? I know some will say it's 'too tame' to be a thrill ride, but remember this is The Guardians thread. By that I mean this Guardians ride doesn't go upside down, have huge drops or claim to be anything more than a family coaster. So if we're choosing to call this 'a thrill ride' then the Matterhorn certainly was a 'thrill ride' in Disneyland back in that time.

Casper Gutman4 hours ago

As was pointed out, thrill rides could be added to the existing lineup. BUT... The idea that Disney needed thrill rides is a new one. Was old Walt a fool for not including them in Disneyland? As far as I know, Disney's first thrill ride was BMT - which REALLY pushes what can be defined as "thrilling" - which debuted 22 years after Disneyland opened its gates. It seems like Disneyland became iconic without needing thrill rides. Disney's first looping coaster opened in 1993 and was... bad. The first looping coaster stateside was Rock N Roller, which opened in 1999. This idea that Disney NEEDS thrill rides is a recent creation.

yensidtlaw19695 hours ago

I mean, not if Disney was really in the habit of adding new attractions instead of just replacing old ones. But.

egg5 hours ago

I fully agree with this, but by that logic, wouldn’t a park full of similarly slow-moving omnimovers (and boats) also be losing out on customers? People who preferred rides like World of Motion had a lot more for them in 1998 than people who preferred rides like Test Track.

doctornick5 hours ago

Yeah. The ride itself and the movie pre show were both IMHO subpar and boring. I’d definitely place them as the weakest link of classic Epcot and the first thing that should have been replaced. The concept of the Hydrolaters and Seabase Alpha was cool but there were definitely lackluster parts. Personally I’d have liked it if they kept the hydrolaters but changed the ride to something interesting to get you to the base. Even using Nemo but in a better way.