Guardians of the (Epcot) Galaxy

[Fantasia79]

Does GoTG really havin staying power? I didn't see the movie, still not very interested in it. This seems like they're willing to put anything in

 

[Iowamomof4]

I thought there was some discussion of innoventions getting some work after Sum of all Thrills closes, yet I don't think I'm seeing that on the list now.

 

[rteetz]

Does GoTG really havin staying power? I didn't see the movie, still not very interested in it. This seems like they're willing to put anything in

Well they are making a second movie and guardians had the staying power from the comics to become a movie so I would think so. Its actually a pretty good movie.

 

[rteetz]

I thought there was some discussion of innoventions getting some work after Sum of all Thrills closes, yet I don't think I'm seeing that on the list now.

Yes there was discussion of that.

 

[Iowamomof4]

Yes there was discussion of that.

So was it just speculation or is it part of this rumored Epcot overhaul?

 

[Lesverts]

I'm confused....

THRILLED to see a potential GotG attraction in WDW. It does not, however, fit in or belong in Epcot. It should be in Tomorrowland (goodbye Stitch) or DHS. If it does indeed wind up in Universe of Energy (which while I love, I'm not too sad to see go) then Epcot will be suffering from a SEVERE identity crisis. What IS the them of the park then?? Imaginary lands in World Showcase...Sci-Fi characters in Future World?? I'm stymied.

I'm glad to see Epcot getting some much needed love. I still think an Inside Out attraction belongs in the Imagination pavilion or Wonders of LIfe. But at this point I'm fully expecting to see a World Showcase land of Sugar Rush, Zootopia, and San Fransokyo.

Who are you Epcot? I feel like I don't even know who you are anymore...

So if I was at WED and on the Disney Board this is what I would propose:

So Epcot is about the human experience and our environment.

So you have things like the Seas, Land, Air, Space, Communication, Energy, Technology and Innovation but can all tie them into Disney film properties like Finding Nemo/Dory, Up, Guardians of the Galaxy, Wreck-it-Ralph, Tron etc. And in World Showcase you show the culture and beside it, how the culture is reflected in Disney movies. Like Frozen for Norway, Snow White/Tangled for Germany, Beauty and the Beast/Ratatouille for France etc. So you end up keeping the core of Epcot, but instead of corporate sponsorship, you have Disney film and legacy tied into the different aspects of each area/pavilion.

I believe that Epcot has the highest allowable capacity from a fire department/safety stand point. So realistically if Disney wanted another park on property to reach 20 million visitors annual it has to be Epcot. There needs to be more to do in Epcot than there is now if they want to get to a daily average of 55,000. Epcot could become a huge guest sink, not only to eat up numbers of visitors but also to balance attendance and keep more people on site for longer. If every rumor is true, Disney has plans for like 6 new attractions plus renovations of a good chunk of the park. Hopefully it happens because Epcot is just sad right now.

 

[Accident]

Does GoTG really havin staying power? I didn't see the movie, still not very interested in it. This seems like they're willing to put anything in

this thread made me want to go watch it again.. It is a surprisingly good and funny movie. I actually welcome them into the parks, just curious where it's going to be.

I hope they do make something new that could rotate with different overlays. that's something that WDW is missing, we don't really have any rides that theme temporarily and there are no rides really setup for it to happen.

 

[ColoradoDreamin]

Does GoTG really havin staying power? I didn't see the movie, still not very interested in it. This seems like they're willing to put anything in

Really it doesn't need staying power to work (see Splash Mountain/Song of the South). Rides can even inspire movies (see Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion). To me, a key note, is that one insider who has been telling us the most about this so far (Martin) who is usually very negative about what they push into the parks (he loves the old Epcot, hates FEA and Nemo), seems ok with this, and in fact says it is something to be optimistic about. Given he knows more than he is even telling us, I think it is reason to look forward to this, and be patient to see how they put it in the park, and to see the direction the park is going.

As much as (many of us) love the old Epcot, much of what it was can no longer exist any more. It is a different world (you can find loads of information out there of why what used to be Epcot can no longer exist, but I will let you do that research), so the execs at Disney had to find a way to keep a park they do love relevant. Change will always cause heartache, but in this case something had to change, and while many may not agree with FEA coming into Epcot, it is hard to complain about how they actually did it. If they didn't try to change it now, Epcot would have been just for eating/drinking and festivals. It can be so much more than that, and still keep a unique take on theme parks at the same time. But if you expect it to be the Epcot it once was, well that is impossible. Bottomline, I am usually one to give Disney a little credit, but even if you don't want to be in my camp, if Martin has some positive feeling about what they are doing, then that says a GREAT deal.

 

[romitaz]

Really it doesn't need staying power to work (see Splash Mountain/Song of the South). Rides can even inspire movies (see Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion). To me, a key note, is that one insider who has been telling us the most about this so far (Martin) who is usually very negative about what they push into the parks (he loves the old Epcot, hates FEA and Nemo), seems ok with this, and in fact says it is something to be optimistic about. Given he knows more than he is even telling us, I think it is reason to look forward to this, and be patient to see how they put it in the park, and to see the direction the park is going.

As much as (many of us) love the old Epcot, much of what it was can no longer exist any more. It is a different world (you can find loads of information out there of why what used to be Epcot can no longer exist, but I will let you do that research), so the execs at Disney had to find a way to keep a park they do love relevant. Change will always cause heartache, but in this case something had to change, and while many may not agree with FEA coming into Epcot, it is hard to complain about how they actually did it. If they didn't try to change it now, Epcot would have been just for eating/drinking and festivals. It can be so much more than that, and still keep a unique take on theme parks at the same time. But if you expect it to be the Epcot it once was, well that is impossible. Bottomline, I am usually one to give Disney a little credit, but even if you don't want to be in my camp, if Martin has some positive feeling about what they are doing, then that says a GREAT deal.

I agree. The world is a much different place than it was 30 years ago. I am 100% for an updated EPCOT in whatever iteration the imagineers think up. The instant information age is upon us. Its time for a change at EPCOT. Also, I have no problem with FEA. It looks very cute and well done. No, it won't be the EPCOT of our childhood but if we want it to be around for our children's children, then things must adapt.

 

[Missyrose]

I love Epcot. But if given a choice between letting my favorite languish away to nothing (which for the last few years Disney has been content to do) and getting new IP-based attractions that will help Disney sell merch, I'm picking the Epcot revival. I know many people are saying "but it shouldn't be a choice between Epcot's vision and reviving the park." But it is, I can guarantee you that there wasn't a second proposal on the execs' desks containing Epcot expansion options that got back to the core beliefs of that park. That ship sailed long ago. And, while I know there's history (the dinosaurs) in UoE, I'm totally fine with Disney gutting a 50-minute time suck of an attraction that very few people ride except for when the crowd is at its busiest.

Disney desperately wants Marvel in its Florida parks and Guardians is a great place to start, it's an entertaining and engaging movie with great characters. More than enough to support and attraction. And I'm guessing Marvel Phase 2 at Epcot could include Dr. Strange and that might be a perfect fit for the park.

In the meantime, I'm holding out hope that the Imagineers knock the GotG attraction out of the park and we get something that resembles the technological step forward in the Pirates ride at Shanghai.

 

[STLstone]

Does GoTG really havin staying power? I didn't see the movie, still not very interested in it. This seems like they're willing to put anything in

I understand this opinion because that's how I felt when I heard they were making this movie, when I saw the previews and every moment up until I saw it.

It's not the greatest property ever, but it is good, the characters are good and it probably will be around for a while.

 

[rteetz]

So was it just speculation or is it part of this rumored Epcot overhaul?

I think there will be some Innoventions changes but there haven't been any specifics on what that will be.

 

[ColoradoDreamin]

I think there will be some Innoventions changes but there haven't been any specifics on what that will be.

word on the street (insiders) is that the innoventions piece will get the work first.

 

[HuskieJohn]

From my understanding the extent of these families was hammered out long ago in the official contracts which have not been released. Disney and Universal both know exactly what they have access too at this point. Putting Guardians of the Galaxy in the same film as the Avengers does not open them up to being part of that family since it is a temporary crossover and not a permanent grouping. I mean if you want to argue that cross overs include a character in the family then Universal has all the marvel universe then. We know this is not true because in the agreement terms posted it is specifically spelled out that Universal has access to those characters and families represented in the park. This implies that there are characters they don't have access too. Considering universe wide events like Infinity Gauntlet and Secret Wars happened before the agreement was made I doubt crossovers effect the definition of "family". Also, Iron Man was part of the GotG team in the comics and that would be a much stronger claim.

GotG is safe for Disney to use; I think the better test will be Doctor Strange. Since he traditionally an independent character with his own comic line and villains but appears in everyone else stories a lot.

What about AntMan? He has technically not yet been a member of the Avengers. Same goes for the Wasp

 

[mcjaco]

Grrr. My multi quote went on the fritz....

For the person that said no one knew Ellen was a ride, guess what? At opening of Grand Opening of EPCOT, my family had no idea what was in UofE either. We spent a great deal of time in Future World that morning trying to find the "dinosaur ride." The one thing Ellen's Energy Adventure did right, was the name. I thought it actually let people know there was something in UofE.

As for GoTG having staying power....I don't think so. Although it was a good movie, I found it to be rather forgettable. Like I barely remember any of it. If I, as a Marvel fan, found the movie forgettable, does the GP really remember it?

And the legal reading of contracts. That poster is incorrect. The whole point of lawyers when reviewing contracts is to limit the loopholes, BUT there will always be loopholes. So, any of us finding them is exactly what a lawyer would do. We just do it at a much cheaper rate!

 

[Princess Minnie of Disney]

So if I was at WED and on the Disney Board this is what I would propose:

So Epcot is about the human experience and our environment.

So you have things like the Seas, Land, Air, Space, Communication, Energy, Technology and Innovation but can all tie them into Disney film properties like Finding Nemo/Dory, Up, Guardians of the Galaxy, Wreck-it-Ralph, Tron etc. And in World Showcase you show the culture and beside it, how the culture is reflected in Disney movies. Like Frozen for Norway, Snow White/Tangled for Germany, Beauty and the Beast/Ratatouille for France etc. So you end up keeping the core of Epcot, but instead of corporate sponsorship, you have Disney film and legacy tied into the different aspects of each area/pavilion.

I believe that Epcot has the highest allowable capacity from a fire department/safety stand point. So realistically if Disney wanted another park on property to reach 20 million visitors annual it has to be Epcot. There needs to be more to do in Epcot than there is now if they want to get to a daily average of 55,000. Epcot could become a huge guest sink, not only to eat up numbers of visitors but also to balance attendance and keep more people on site for longer. If every rumor is true, Disney has plans for like 6 new attractions plus renovations of a good chunk of the park. Hopefully it happens because Epcot is just sad right now.

Thank you for such a well written explanation of what Epcot is trying to become. I agree that Disney wants to use their characters to create a park that holds those old core values and yet is fun and magical.

 

[Planogirl]

So if I was at WED and on the Disney Board this is what I would propose:

So Epcot is about the human experience and our environment.

So you have things like the Seas, Land, Air, Space, Communication, Energy, Technology and Innovation but can all tie them into Disney film properties like Finding Nemo/Dory, Up, Guardians of the Galaxy, Wreck-it-Ralph, Tron etc. And in World Showcase you show the culture and beside it, how the culture is reflected in Disney movies. Like Frozen for Norway, Snow White/Tangled for Germany, Beauty and the Beast/Ratatouille for France etc. So you end up keeping the core of Epcot, but instead of corporate sponsorship, you have Disney film and legacy tied into the different aspects of each area/pavilion.

I believe that Epcot has the highest allowable capacity from a fire department/safety stand point. So realistically if Disney wanted another park on property to reach 20 million visitors annual it has to be Epcot. There needs to be more to do in Epcot than there is now if they want to get to a daily average of 55,000. Epcot could become a huge guest sink, not only to eat up numbers of visitors but also to balance attendance and keep more people on site for longer. If every rumor is true, Disney has plans for like 6 new attractions plus renovations of a good chunk of the park. Hopefully it happens because Epcot is just sad right now.

I really like your ideas here and would be interested in this. However I don't think that they did this with the Frozen ride so I'm not real hopeful that they'll do it elsewhere. Throwing in a few Nordic buildings doesn't really tie an IP to a country IMO.

 

[Phicinfan]

What about AntMan? He has technically not yet been a member of the Avengers. Same goes for the Wasp

In the comics they were original Avengers. At least Antman was, Wasp was not far behind I believe, so my guess is they can't use those in WDW.

 

[ColinBlair]

And the legal reading of contracts. That poster is incorrect. The whole point of lawyers when reviewing contracts is to limit the loopholes, BUT there will always be loopholes. So, any of us finding them is exactly what a lawyer would do. We just do it at a much cheaper rate!

A lawyer finding a real legal loophole in a contract is a lawyer doing their job. When non-lawyers try to find loopholes you come up with idiots who believe that adding extra punctuation to their legal name makes them exempt from having to pay income taxes. We simply don't have the training to know the difference between law and pseudolaw. That is why we pay lawyers to figure it out for us. My assumption is that Disney isn't playing "we think we have a loophole, I dare you to sue us" with Comcast.

As for the overall question, Big Hero 6 is at least as entangled with the Avengers and Spider-Man as Guardians of the Galaxy is and I haven't heard any squawking from Comcast about Baymax being at Epcot.

 

[mcjaco]

A lawyer finding a real legal loophole in a contract is a lawyer doing their job. When non-lawyers try to find loopholes you come up with idiots who believe that adding extra punctuation to their legal name makes them exempt from having to pay income taxes. We simply don't have the training to know the difference between law and pseudolaw. That is why we pay lawyers to figure it out for us. My assumption is that Disney isn't playing "we think we have a loophole, I dare you to sue us" with Comcast.

As for the overall question, Big Hero 6 is at least as entangled with the Avengers and Spider-Man as Guardians of the Galaxy is and I haven't heard any squawking from Comcast about Baymax being at Epcot.

I didn't have any formal legal training as a Casualty Claims Adjuster, and yet I had to read legal contracts, and make legal decisions as part of my job. Guess I was practing pseudo law for huge municipalities.