Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind - General Discussion

[GAcoaster]

The money spent on an attraction is always an interesting thing as a "fan". Some things you see every penny spent (or not spent) and some things you have to marvel at how much was spent and not see the results.

I always think about a car I bought several years ago-- it was my pride and joy. I spent just over $20,000 (a Saturn Vue) and it was loaded- leather, heated seats, really nice. Just after I bought it I rode in a coworker's new Volkswagen SUV which was similar in size and it was more luxurious but cost over $40,000. I couldn't help but think they got ripped off. Yes, it was nicer than mine, but not twice as nice by any stretch. That happens with attractions too.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

did you have to pay for it? I never understood this obsession with construction budget. There are so many factors when it comes to budget, materials , and labor that comparing a ride bullt in 2010 to one in 2022 is meaningless.

anyway…. Epcot needed a new ride , and it replaced one of the least popular rides in the park. A ride people literally used to fall asleep on.

do I wish Disney through in a couple AAs? Sure, but I’m also quite certain the ride will be fun, and please most audiences. Which is exactly what Disney wants from a new attraction.

Yeah I’ve never understood the fascination with this either. But I touched on this in my review—no matter what you think of the cost, this ride LOOKS and FEELS expensive. The “problem” for some is that the bulk of that is felt in the queue vs the ride experience itself. So the question should be “did the money go toward something you personally care about” vs “did the F500 multi-billion dollar company waste any money?”

 

[SailwiththeTide]

The money spent on an attraction is always an interesting thing as a "fan". Some things you see every penny spent (or not spent) and some things you have to marvel at how much was spent and not see the results.

I always think about a car I bought several years ago-- it was my pride and joy. I spent just over $20,000 (a Saturn Vue) and it was loaded- leather, heated seats, really nice. Just after I bought it I rode in a coworker's new Volkswagen SUV which was similar in size and it was more luxurious but cost over $40,000. I couldn't help but think they got ripped off. Yes, it was nicer than mine, but not twice as nice by any stretch. That happens with attractions too.

Its interesting in the fact that Disney has such a different standard than anyone else. Sure Universal delivered on Velocicoaster but you would never see a Fast and Furious fail at Disney.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I only care how much something costs when it prevents me from getting MORE stuff. I believe Disney's budgets prevent us from getting more stuff.

 

[Alicia]

Its interesting in the fact that Disney has such a different standard than anyone else. Sure Universal delivered on Velocicoaster but you would never see a Fast and Furious fail at Disney.

Maybe not now, but twenty years ago they spit out Journey into your imagination and superstar limo, so everyone makes mistakes.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Sure Universal delivered on Velocicoaster but you would never see a Fast and Furious fail at Disney.

Literally not true.

 

[SailwiththeTide]

Maybe not now, but twenty years ago they spit out Journey into your imagination and superstar limo, so everyone makes mistakes.

Sorry but Superstar Limo was a masterpiece.

 

[HandsomePete]

Literally not true.

Fact, can’t recall Universal doing something as disastrous as Rivers of Light. And people forget Luigi’s air hockey table. Just as two examples.

Sorry but Superstar Limo was a masterpiece.

This too.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

I only care how much something costs when it prevents me from getting MORE stuff. I believe Disney's budgets prevent us from getting more stuff.

This is overly simplistic. If you’ve ever been part of budget planning for a Fortune 500, you know a major expenditure (like a ride based on a successful IP) is going to get as much budget as possible before you hit your cap for the fiscal year. If the ride was any cheaper, the remaining budget wouldn’t get carried over into the next year for some hypothetical new ride…it would either:
1.) get written off as a surplus and deducted from next year’s budget…OR
2.) get put toward non-major/non-revenue expenditures that don’t require advanced planning, marketing, etc.

Guess which option gets chosen 9 times out of 10.

There’s probably some politics involved. Say there’s a guy who’s really interested in updating the trash cans throughout the park—that’s not going to get approved by the finance team when you have a major new ride to pay for. So Imagineering bundles that cost into the cost of the new ride to get the smaller project off the ground.

Again, all this ignoring that we have a ride that literally built a planetarium in the queue, ground-up CGI character designs, a cast of four to five Hollywood actors, etc. To say “half a billion for a coaster in a box” is purposefully obtuse.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

This is overly simplistic. If you’ve ever been part of budget planning for a Fortune 500, you know a major expenditure (like a ride based on a successful IP) is going to get as much budget as possible before you hit your cap for the fiscal year. If the ride was any cheaper, the remaining budget wouldn’t get carried over into the next year for some hypothetical new ride…it would either:
1.) get written off as a surplus and deducted from next year’s budget…OR
2.) get put toward non-major/non-revenue expenditures that don’t require advanced planning, marketing, etc.

Guess which option gets chosen 9 times out of 10.

There’s probably some politics involved. Say there’s a guy who’s really interested in updating the trash cans throughout the park—that’s not going to get approved by the finance team when you have a major new ride to pay for. So Imagineering bundles that cost into the cost of the new ride to get the smaller project off the ground.

Again, all this ignoring that we have a ride that literally built a planetarium in the queue, ground-up CGI character designs, a cast of four to five Hollywood actors, etc. To say “half a billion for a coaster in a box” is purposefully obtuse.

If all WDI is pumping out is $1bn lands, then yes I expect there to be fewer approvals for projects than if they were fielding hits in the $50-$100m range.

 

[Alicia]

If all WDI is pumping out is $1bn lands, then yes I expect there to be fewer approvals for projects than if they were fielding hits in the $50-$100m range.

Mary Poppins, and SSE re-do actually got announced and still didn’t happen. Imagine what smaller projects get proposed but never approved.

 

[fryoj]

If the rides cost them less to build, profits would be higher and there'd be less pressure to continually raise prices/cut things. They'd still do it, but maybe not so drastically.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

If all WDI is pumping out is $1bn lands, then yes I expect there to be fewer approvals for projects than if they were fielding hits in the $50-$100m range.

My point was it’s all relative to overall budget. The big lands/big IPs will always have the most lenient approvals. If everything cost 100 million then the same concept applies, you’ve just moved the goalposts in. It’s not like lowering the percentage you’re willing to spend on your landmark revenue project opens up the wallet for a bunch of other projects—it just ends up going to other things that would otherwise be on the back burner like infrastructure, back-of-house upgrades, etc.

Now, if you wanted to argue that they could allocate funding to MULTIPLE attractions per fiscal year at once then you’d be onto something. But…

If the rides cost them less to build, profits would be higher and there'd be less pressure to continually raise prices/cut things. They'd still do it, but maybe not so drastically.

Clearly they’re at a place where the budgets they set are at a satisfactory ROI for the average product. Increasing the number of new attractions per year would only dilute the profit attribution.

As far as tickets go, those will increase no matter what. Universal has been cranking out hits at a lower cost and their tickets are just as expensive.

 

[shiekra38]

What Disney must have spent on it, no. But they overspend on everything...

It's a fun, solid ride, and a needed new addition, but it's really Space Mountain 2.0.

Maybe it was just my ride, but I found the projections to be really poor considering the availability of state of the art projection systems and digital animations.

Not to play the companies against each other further, but if Universal had built this you'd hear nothing but complaints it's all screens. Since Disney did it "it's the BEST!". And, not a knock on Universal, this really feels like a Universal ride more than a Disney ride, which I guess was Disney's point in building it since they keep losing market share to Universal because Disney is perceived as "not thrilling/boring" for families with children over the age of 8.

Ironically, all of Universal's indoor coasters have AAs lol

But I get what you're saying

TBH I'm more pissy about everyone clamouring about how amazing the "room reset" effect is when Poseidon has being doing it since '99

Disney has been giving me exactly what I expect for years now (Rise being an exception)..but I feel like they are still way overhyped in spite of that, and this ride will be hyped to high heaven

I just know Tron is going to get lauded over as well...I'm not ready for the onsluaght

 

[Nick]

I only care how much something costs when it prevents me from getting MORE stuff. I believe Disney's budgets prevent us from getting more stuff.

Honestly, I don’t think this is true. Disney is focused on building big E-tickets. They have no intention of building rides that aren’t marketable. And you mentioned the $50-$100M range... what we are currently getting for around that price is a Moana walkthrough and a new Festival Center.

 

[Magic-Man]

The word I keep hearing about GoTG is "fun". But when EPCOT first opened, the word I heard a lot was impressive. They aimed much higher in scope in those days.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I'd rather have fun over impressive for EPCOT specifically. The park needs more fun rides. I like the direction the park is going in right now, I just hope that we don't go into another attractions drought.

Magic Kingdom on the other hand.... yeah that park needs some more groundbreaking new attractions.

 

[Nick]

Yeah, MK really feels stale.

 

[belloq87]

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I'd rather have fun over impressive for EPCOT specifically. The park needs more fun rides.

These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

You can design a "fun" ride that still embodies the ethos of the park that many of us found so impressive and inspiring.

Yeah, MK really feels stale.

Depends on what one is looking for. I go to that park specifically to enjoy the classics. It's the ultimate "comfort food" park. Obviously I want new things (and there are multiple large expansion pads waiting to be used), but not at the expense of (most of) what's already there.

And it's also the park that (from my vantage point) offers the best value for the asking price, by far.

 

[OLSinFLA]

Its interesting in the fact that Disney has such a different standard than anyone else. Sure Universal delivered on Velocicoaster but you would never see a Fast and Furious fail at Disney.

Superstar Limo: Hold my beer

 

[SailwiththeTide]

Superstar Limo: Hold my beer

Superstar Limo > Monsters inc