Disney says Guardians of the Galaxy roller coaster at Epcot will be among longest enclosed

Has anyone seen rumors of what type of ride system they are aiming for? I have seen articles about Disney patents for some wild pendulum systems (https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2017/10/06/disney-patent-h...-with.html). I also have heard rumors of more pedestrian styles like a wild mouse or wildcat, but while that seems more likely to me, it does not quite fulfill the promise of "a new innovative ride system that’s guaranteed to wow guests." Has anyone got better info or want to lay down the betting line?

The dressed up off the shelf ride rumor seems to pop up any time Disney builds something new, but how often has it really come true? I would be surprised if that's what this ends up being. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being some type of coaster/dark ride hybrid like Escape from Gringotts.

The sad fanboys will never let go of Primeval Whirl. Which is funny, because that's probably my favorite standard model coaster ever. Love it even more now that my kid does.

I just read a potential rumor that was talking about that Vekoma Flying Coaster prototype we've been talking about and assuming was for Phantasialand (that F.L.Y. coaster), since Disney has some patents that are similar to what Vekoma does for the standing to flying cars, and since Disney works with Vekoma coasters. Maybe Phantasialand is getting the same thing...and it's the first one, with Disney getting another one...

I don’t see much special about Slinky Dog coaster, especially since the original layout was altered. Except it’s going to be cute as hell and provides another family ride for everyone to line up for.

Guardians needs/deserves a ride system that will indeed totally wow guests. As a new property to WDW, it’s important that the thrill factor is raised in a unique way, kind of the way Master Potter did it for Uni. And argue about tradition all you want, the fact that this ride will appear at EPCOT fills a void that has existed since the beginning of time.

I wonder if the park(s) will think about raising the number of top-tier fastpasses allowed. With so many new options on the horizon and at 2000+ for a family of four (thank you, Gonch for working that out,... because math) I hope so. EPCOT is especially disappointing in that regard. On a busy day it’s one e-ticket and you’re done. It’s the boat ride at Land for ya.

Or, am I looking at this wrong?

They have rides at Epcot? I only go during the Food and Wine Festival and drink my way around the world (start in England, proceed clockwise, end up in France for Illuminations)

:-)

Hopefully it will wow guests more than the film wowed me.

/curmudgeon

Oh, hater. I thought they were both pretty good, especially the second one. Michael Rooker was likable for the first time in his entire career.

Meh. I dunno...my dad was thanked in the credits. That was cool.

Jeff said:

The sad fanboys will never let go of Primeval Whirl. Which is funny, because that's probably my favorite standard model coaster ever. Love it even more now that my kid does.

I liked it, but I'll never be able to ride it again. I need Dramamine just to walk by it.

RCMAC said:

I wonder if the park(s) will think about raising the number of top-tier fastpasses allowed. With so many new options on the horizon and at 2000+ for a family of four (thank you, Gonch for working that out,... because math) I hope so. EPCOT is especially disappointing in that regard. On a busy day it’s one e-ticket and you’re done. It’s the boat ride at Land for ya.

Or, am I looking at this wrong?

I would like to think that they will bump it up, but my recent experience is that stand-by on Soarin' is becoming a more tolerable option. We hit Frozen Ever After and the character experience in the middle of the day on our August trip and both had stand by waits significantly less than advertised on a fairly busy day (waited around 40 for the ride, 15 for the characters).

Jeff said:

Oh, hater. I thought they were both pretty good, especially the second one. Michael Rooker was likable for the first time in his entire career.

You may be the first person I've heard suggest/imply that Vol. 2 was better than Vol. 1. I thought Vol. 1 was *by far* the better movie.

Now, I need to dip my toe in Disney-phile-dom. This seems all wrong for Epcot. Yeah, I get they already have travel covered with Mission: Space, but this seems a bridge too far. Sounds great for Studios, but out of place at Epcot. Are they planning a whole Marvel section in Epcot now?

The sciencey vibe hasn't been solid in more than a decade. The Land, and maybe Mission Space and Test Track get you sort of there. But gone are Universe of Energy, Wonders of Life, World of Motion, non-sucky Journey into Imagination, Living Seas (I guess it's still an aquarium, with Nemo) and Horizons, which I don't actually remember except that it was an omnimover. If I put the nostalgia aside, I tend to think two things: 1) The science stuff wasn't particularly marketable, and 2) that makes me sad. Other than Test Track and Soarin', the only thing Future World is at night is something you pass through to leave.

I agree it is sad but disagree that it can't be marketed. Science can be very marketable when the product is executed correctly. Mission: Space isn't ho-hum because of science; it's just a poorly executed ride. Unfortunately they learned the wrong lessons with that. Consider the Monorail. No IP. No thrill. Just a cool futuristic technology that people LOVE.*

Disney has such an incredible platform with the audience, resources and creative juices to portray science as riveting. Future World could be the science "center" of the United States but the company doesn't want to commit. Sad reflection of culture yes, but Disney could clearly create compelling science-based experiences here that audiences would love. If they can get people salivating about Avatar, they can certainly do it for the world of science. It all comes down to the execution.

*I'll concede the novelty of clean, well-funded mass transit in the States and the feeling of being on vacation also plays a role here, but you get the point.

They just need to incorporate Neil DeGrasse Tyson. People love him and relate to him and he's totally marketable.

I find him to be pretentious and douchey, but to each their own.

Science at EPCOT seems to suffer from the same syndrome as Tomorrowland. How long until the future is no longer the future? Maybe Science is an easier overlay than Tomorrow, but can be expensive if advances come quickly. There’s nothing worse than out of date technology when you’re trying to leave an impression.

I’d go into Ellen just to see her old hair. Then I’d leave.

As a new property to WDW, it’s important that the thrill factor is raised in a unique way,

Sure. After all, look how well it worked out at Mission: Space!

/sarcasm

More seriously: there is a reason that the Seven Dwarves is a hit at WDW. It is perfect for their target demographic. It's visually fantastic. It's surprisingly fun. It's not scary. Thinking that WDW needs thrills is a CBuzz-centric perspective.

kpjb said:

I find him to be pretentious and douchey, but to each their own.

Well he hates dumb people, so there!

Also, Ellen's Energy Adventure...