Guardians of The Galaxy ride sticks out at Disney California Adventure because they meant to do that

First mistake: Don't get the opinion of people on Disney "fan" sites. They make coaster enthusiasts look like socially well-adjusted grownups.

^Exactly. The "strict constitutionalist" crowd...What Would Walt Do?

In the coaster group, it's the people willing to lose friendships over the classification of an RMC ride...

My first reaction to the thread title was "Glad they meant to, because to get a building that ugly by accident would be a travesty."

I'm not a fan of the design, but I think it will improve. GotG is just the first phase of remaking that corner of the park into a Marvel focused area. I think in 5 years is when we need to judge it. Still, I am not sure it was a wise investment. I am of the school that IP should be enshrined in the parks only after it becomes immortal. GotG is a good couple of movies, but will people care 10 years from now?

GotG, amongst the rest of whatever is planned, is part of the marvle universe. It already is legendary, regardless of any recent movies. The IP has been around nearly 50 years.

^^ But really, how many people had honestly heard of GotG in the Marvel Universe? I mean, your argument about Marvel being popular for so long still holds water, but why a GotG themed drop tower specifically? Will anyone care about that theming in 20 years (I'm going with 20 because I think we're still in phase 2 of the master plan, and it's been quite a few years already)?

I was a Marvel nerd as a kid in the late 80's, and was not familiar with the characters. That said, I finally saw the movie (because I can see the second one on my next cruise), and I enjoyed it. It's a surprising well fleshed out vision of a different universe.

My dad illustrated Marvel comics from the late 60s to the early 2000s, and I'd never heard of GotG before these movies, either.

I am not a comics guy, so I am forced to rely on others:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_members

While GotG do date back to 1969, the primary cast of the movies (with the exception of the secondary character Yondu) only dates back to 2008. For perspective, Disney bought Marvel in 2009.

So of all the Marvel properties, were GotG the best choice for that spot? I think they could have done better.

- In terms of placemaking, I think Captain America could have been an ideal choice. Rework the 1940's hotel story theme a bit, and have Cap (perhaps with an assist from Spiderman) "catch" or "juggle" the falling elevator. Pros: This gives you a nice transitional building from Hollywoodland to whatever more fantastical (and easily hid) Marvelland you build in the future. It is also an option that does not require a total reskinning of the exterior of the building. Cons: Captain America is a bit parochial. For various reasons, Anaheim is the only Disney park where this theme survives. Also, in terms of the MCU, my money is on Cap not surviving Infinity Wars. Still, if we absolutely have to replace Twilight Zone (which is in itself debatable), this is my choice.

- In terms of promotional, hip-to-the-kids terms, I think Avenger's Tower could have been pulled off. The proportions of ToT would have been caused some scaling issues in this reskinning, but that is why Imagineers earn the big bucks. Such a hyper modern building would impact Hollywoodland, but such impact is reality with every radical building. The theme would endure it. Plus it would be a good anchor to Marvelland. Let's set the story as "Avenger Tower offers public tours, gets attacked, heroes save guests." This offers flexible "Star Tours"- like programming options, able to evolve with new movies as time goes on. It is still overly-imposing to the placemaking around the park, but explaining "That's where super hero's live" is much easier than whatever convoluted tale GotG is. All in all, it is a more enduring use of the available IP, with a much cleaner story.

-And just for comparison, GotG. It is convoluted. In story telling terms, it is WTF. Take someone who has not seen the movies, stand them outside the building, and in two sentences, summarize the ride story. I can't do it. In terms of place making, it contrasts with absolutely everything. And while GotG is developing a strong resume with a couple really good movies, it has not yet stood the test of time. For comparison, look at how long Little Mermaid took to become enshrined in the parks. I also question the durability of the exterior. For as ugly as it is today, how is it going to look after a few years in the sun? I just question if this IP was the best choice for this spot.

I was also a comics guy who knew exactly what Guardians was, since the early 90s. Never read a single issue but knew who they were.

But regardless, the IP isnt 'new' regardless of who currently plays them in screen, the line to ride a reskinned version of a 13 year old ride was 7 hours yesterday (!), And I trust disney knows what they're doing. As far as how nice the building looks over the next few years? I'd imagine as nice as if looked the previous 13.

There are a lot of hard core comic nerds out there, there are a lot if casual fans if the MCU, and both Guardians movies have done very well.

Also, has anyone watched a video of it? The entire thing is easily changeable on every scene. It doesn't have to keep the current storyline at all.

Also, Pandora.

I saw the first GotG film, and it was fun, but my GotG team will always be the one with Martinex and Charlie 27.

The beauty of GotG as an attraction is that guests don't need to be familiar with the movies or the comics to enjoy the ride. Alien collector collects things including our heroes, we have to free them. Most guests enjoy Splash Mountain having no idea it was based on a Disney movie; the attraction storyline in each case is clear and well presented.

I'd argue that a GotG-based attraction makes a whole lot more sense then when Paramount introduced Hurler at KD and Carowinds. Ten years from now, DCA will have an attraction with an SF theme. KD and Carowinds had areas themed to 1970s (?) Aurora, Illinois. I'll take the former, please.

So is this the same ride just with different theming or did they change the ride system also?

Pete said:

So is this the same ride just with different theming or did they change the ride system also?

Same ride system, different theme with an objectively ugly exterior. The ride scenes were designed to be easily changed in the future (either with different scenes in the same theme, or to a completely different theme entirely).

Yeah, I don't think the IP matters much for this ride either, and it doesn't strike me as very hard to understand:

Tekwardo said:

And I trust disney knows what they're doing.

Coaster nerds writing on the internet from their couches, or the company with access to sophisticated market research and generates a net income measured in the billions year and after year.....yeah I think I'll side with the Disney decision makers, too.

But...but...OUR opinion should matter the most! *grin*

matt. said:

Coaster nerds writing on the internet from their couches, or the company with access to sophisticated market research and generates a net income measured in the billions.....

But I'm writing on the Internet from a chair in my kitchen! Isn't that different? :-)

Completely agree. Disney didn't make this change on a whim. They made it based on data and analysis.

Not a fan of recycling a TOT into this ride. Granted, I am not into comics and never heard of Guardians of the Galaxy. And, I have no idea of the new experience (with the old ride system).

I glad this intergalactic power plant crashed outside of Disneyland, the original park. A once great building on Buena Vista street now transformed into a hideous power plant. It seems anti-placemaking. It would be interesting to see the struggles and clashes that the Imagineers had in making this attraction.

Was at Disneyland in March and it is definitely an eye-catcher. There is no way to be anywhere in the Disneyland complex and not stare at that thing. It is very out of place, but I guess that's the point? Or will be more of the point once the area it anchors is complete?

This amounts to Paramount type theming. This is the exact kind of attraction placement that made the former Taft parks so dysfunctional when Paramount took them over.

Putting an attraction tied to a franchise that they want to promote, in a part of the park that has nothing to do with it. Maybe in this case to sell merchandise?

They can say all that they want that they "meant for it to look out of place," but it destroys the overall theme of the area in which it is placed.

Disney has always been about being immersed in a different place and time, including the total themed area. This doesn't work.