Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind - General Discussion

[Nick]

As I've said many times, the issue is not implementing IP in Epcot. The issue is laziness in how they go about it.

There was a very easy way to make a FROZEN ride fit perfectly into Norway. They didn't do it.

There are ways a GOTG ride could fit into (what was once) Future World. They (apparently) didn't do it.

There are any number of ways to do a great Mary Poppins attraction in the U.K. Pavilion. They're not doing it.

All the while, they pander (if not outright lie) and talk about how they're "honoring" the legacy of the park, and it's just nonsense.

There was nothing lazy about Ratatouille or what the Poppins Cherry Tree Lane was supposed to bring though so IP can be done very right. I even think that the Moana area will be done pretty well, tbh.

Frozen Ever After was a short sighted move to get a Frozen ride into the parks as fast as possible instead of the best ride for the IP, more preferably at DHS or MK. I agree this wasn't the best.

As far as GotG... I just don't have much against it being there. I've never understood those who have said that Tron would fit here better as an IP. If this really is a big bang ride told through the GotG IP, isn't that in theory sticking to some form of a new era edutainment ride about the Universe/Energy? I just can't get myself worked up about GotG in Epcot. The way they are trying to tie it to retro EPCOT Center is cheesy and I wish they weren't doing it, but oh well.

 

[OhHaiInternet95]

There was nothing lazy about Ratatouille or what the Poppins Cherry Tree Lane was supposed to bring though so IP can be done very right. I even think that the Moana area will be done pretty well, tbh.

Frozen Ever After was a short sighted move to get a Frozen ride into the parks as fast as possible instead of the best ride for the IP, more preferably at DHS or MK. I agree this wasn't the best.

As far as GotG... I just don't have much against it being there. I've never understood those who have said that Tron would fit here better as an IP. If this really is a big bang ride told through the GotG IP, isn't that in theory sticking to some form of a new era edutainment ride about the Universe/Energy? I just can't get myself worked up about GotG in Epcot. The way they are trying to tie it to retro EPCOT Center is cheesy and I wish they weren't doing it, but oh well.

Epcot is getting a Mary Poppins ride!

 

[OLSinFLA]

I think saying "people don't like longer ride" and "they want more thrill" is the laziest excuse for turning EPCOT into MK clone. Also, if you're going to have 5 minutes rides, its probably best not just to have 3 of them in a big area with nothing else. (Again, the fact that the ride times went from nearly 2 hours to 12 minutes gives people a feeling there's not much to do. Which is a complaint I hear a lot. ) There's what? 10 rides in whole of EPCOT (including seacabs).

 

[belloq87]

There was nothing lazy about Ratatouille or what the Poppins Cherry Tree Lane was supposed to bring though so IP can be done very right.

Frozen Ever After was a short sighted move to get a Frozen ride into the parks as fast as possible instead of the best ride for the IP, more preferably at DHS or MK. I agree this wasn't the best.

When I'm talking about "lazy," I'm talking about making the effort to fit something into the ethos of the park. Ratatouille's an ode (albeit a zany one) to French dining, so it's already -- mostly -- a solid fit for a France area, and there was no creative effort needed to shoehorn it in.

As far as GotG... I just don't have much against it being there. I've never understood those who have said that Tron would fit here better as an IP. If this really is a big bang ride told through the GotG IP, isn't that in theory sticking to some form of a new era edutainment ride about the Universe/Energy? I just can't get myself worked up about GotG in Epcot. The way they are trying to tie it to retro EPCOT Center is cheesy and I wish they weren't doing it, but oh well.

Cosmic Rewind's entire backstory is science fiction/space fantasy stuff about a fictional alien race from a fictional planet. The only thing even vaguely close to this sort of fantastical stuff existing in Epcot prior to this would be CAPTAIN EO, but that was merely a show in the larger Imagination pavilion; I'd actually be all in favor of a GOTG show taking over the Imagination theater, because that would totally fit the concept to me as a representation of imagination in the form of popular culture.

TRON, whatever else it may be, is at least centered around computers and gaming; add a loose backstory about how guests are visiting an ENCOM expo/showroom to preview their latest tech concepts, and that's all you need. It would still be ridiculous science fiction, but it's ultimately related (using that framing device) to big aspects of how people engage with and entertain each other in our real world, which makes it far more grounded than aliens and talking raccoons.

And I will happily come here and eat crow if Cosmic Rewind ends up being anything more than the theme park equivalent of empty calories. Which can be fun, and I expect, for those purely looking for base thrills, the ride will be a lot of fun. I just happen to think that the offerings in Epcot should attempt to give the guest something unique (relative to the other parks), because otherwise, what makes the park special on a conceptual level?

 

[Nick]

I think saying "people don't like longer ride" and "they want more thrill" is the laziest excuse for turning EPCOT into MK clone. Also, if you're going to have 5 minutes rides, its probably best not just to have 3 of them in a big area with nothing else. (Again, the fact that the ride times went from nearly 2 hours to 12 minutes gives people a feeling there's not much to do. Which is a complaint I hear a lot. ) There's what? 10 rides in whole of EPCOT (including seacabs).

I really don’t see EPCOT as an MK clone at all and see it as it’s own unique park.

And I agree, the park needs more rides. Literally every WDW park including MK needs more. Doesn’t take away from the existing rides. It’s on corporate for literally letting Epcot rot since the mid ‘90’s.

Ratatouille was literally the first ADDITION to the ride lineup since Maelstrom and Body Wars debuted in ‘89. It’s not Guardians fault that Disney hasn’t added anything to Epcot in that span.

When I'm talking about "lazy," I'm talking about making the effort to fit something into the ethos of the park. Ratatouille's an ode (albeit a zany one) to French dining, so it's already -- mostly -- a solid fit for a France area, and there was no creative effort needed to shoehorn it in.



Cosmic Rewind's entire backstory is science fiction/space fantasy stuff about a fictional alien race from a fictional planet. The only thing even vaguely close to this sort of fantastical stuff existing in Epcot prior to this would be CAPTAIN EO, but that was merely a show in the larger Imagination pavilion; I'd actually be all in favor of a GOTG show taking over the Imagination theater, because that would totally fit the concept to me as a representation of imagination in the form of popular culture.

TRON, whatever else it may be, is at least centered around computers and gaming; add a loose backstory about how guests are visiting an ENCOM expo/showroom to preview their latest tech concepts, and that's all you need. It would still be ridiculous science fiction, but it's ultimately related (using that framing device) to big aspects of how people engage with and entertain each other in our real world, which makes it far more grounded than aliens and talking raccoons.

And I will happily come here and eat crow if Cosmic Rewind ends up being anything more than the theme park equivalent of empty calories. Which can be fun, and I expect, for those purely looking for base thrills, the ride will be a lot of fun. I just happen to think that the offerings in Epcot should attempt to give the guest something unique (relative to the other parks), because otherwise, what makes the park special on a conceptual level?

I guess I get how Tron is better than GotG for Epcot when it comes to building aesthetics. I actually am happy that the UoE show building survived as at least it's a themed building whereas Tron is just a box with a canopy. Aside from that though, what's the major difference? They're both coasters based on sci-fi properties.

On a conceptual level I really think it's tbd right now since there's no public reports about it yet. As I said, this is supposedly a big bang coaster that had the GotG IP attached during the design phase. If that's true, then isn't the concept "the birth of our Universe"? Just because something like that is being told by the GotG doesn't mean it can't fit in conceptually.

 

[belloq87]

Aside from that though, what's the major difference? They're both coasters based on sci-fi properties.

I mean, I attempted to lay out pretty clearly what I think the difference is! You might not see a distinction, but I see a pretty fundamental one.

Neither concept is ideal for what I'd like to see Epcot be, but I could live with one a lot more comfortably than I can the other.

As I said, this is supposedly a big bang coaster that had the GotG IP attached during the design phase. If that's true, then isn't the concept "the birth of our Universe"? Just because something like that is being told by the GotG doesn't mean it can't fit in conceptually.

We'll see soon enough!

 

[Nick]

I mean, I attempted to lay out pretty clearly what I think the difference is! You might not see a distinction, but I see a pretty fundamental one.

I see where you see the distinction, but please excuse me for not caring since the park has been so stagnant and stale for so long. EPCOT Center is not being killed off by Cosmic Rewind like some seem to want to suggest, it was killed off a long, long time ago. And Disney didn't seem to care to keep the original EPCOT Center they built around. They actually seemed gleeful to get rid of it. This seems like it should be a fun ride and that's what i'm more interested in than if it fits into some theme that very loosely exists at this point to begin with. No one cares if a ride is perfectly in theme if it's a bad ride.

I've said this before, but EPCOT Center saw a slow yet steady decline. There was a 6 year period from 1993-1999 where virtually all of the original rides were either updated or removed completely aside from one (SSE) and a longer period from 1993-2007 where the park just kind of went slowly downhill and was stuck in the 90's until the recent remodel.

What happened during those times that fundamentally changed the park, though? Sponsorships! And boy did a ton of them end and Disney suddenly stop caring in the 90's. Let's go over it in an organized way...

• The Land - Kraft decided not to renew sponsorship in 1993. Nestle took over, which was the reason for all attractions changing such as updating Listen with the Land to Living with the Land, replacing KK with Food Rocks, and replacing Symbiosis with Circle of Life. Chiquita recently sponsored the pavilion until 2020.
• Horizons - General Electric decided not to renew sponsorship in 1993. Disney originally closed the ride back in 1994, but due to Future World East having both UoE and World of Motion closed in 1996, they reopened the ride until UoE was done with it's refurb to fill a void, seeing as the only other pavilion open was Wonders of Life. Disney continued to operate Horizons on a seasonal basis until the day before Test Track opened in 1999. If they had it their way, it would've been razed back in the early 90's. A new ride wouldn't open until 2003.
• World of Motion - General Motors actually continued their sponsorship (and still sponsors today under Chevrolet), but they wanted to build a thrill ride instead of continue operating World of Motion, which resulted in the loss of that attraction.
• Universe of Energy - Exxon decided to renew sponsorship in 1996. Popularity of the ride had been dwindling so they decided to add an up and comer (who just so happened to have a sitcom on Disney-owned ABC) in Ellen Degeneres to the ride and rebrand it as Ellen's Energy Adventure. Exxon left in 2004 and then the ride just sort of sat there in a decaying state until it's closure in 2017 as Disney put no money into it.
• Imagination! - Kodak decided to renew their sponsorship in 1998. In 1994, they had changed out Captain EO for Honey, I Shrunk The Audience and in 1998, they decided to refurbish the ride in what has to be the biggest downgrade for the park in the history of it. Kodak left in 2010 and once again, Disney has done nothing here in that time aside from bring back Captain EO for 4 years and then put an animated short films "festival" in the theater.
• Wonders of Life - MetLife ended their sponsorship in 2001. Disney took control of operation of the building and in 2004 it went seasonal with it then closing for good in 2007, once again because Disney was unwilling to put the money in that their sponsors were. It turned into a Festival Pavilion from their when day guests were allowed in, no attractions operating however.
• The Living Seas - United Technologies decided not to renew their lease in 1998. This left Disney to have to front the costs of the pavilion and they kept the ride open for roughly 7 more years until 2005, but it was a long 7 years with the pavilion going downhill with changes being made towards Finding Nemo in 2003 after it's release and the introduction of Turtle Talk with Crush in 2004. The ride underwent a remodel to become The Seas with Nemo& Friends in 2006.

Make no mistake, the sponsor model was a huge failure. They got the short term savings of not having to run the pavilions, but every single time a sponsorship ran out (until recently when no one wanted to sponsor anymore), Disney ignored the ride/pavilion until they couldn't anymore.

 

[belloq87]

We've had this disagreement before. I don't really see anything fundamentally breaking the original thematic ideas of Epcot until Frozen Ever After.

The discussion of the quality of the changes in the 1990s and 2000s is an entirely different issue. We may not think Mission Space, Test Track, The Seas, Ellen's Energy Adventure, or the various newer versions of Imagination are/were great rides, but they feel/felt like they belong in the park (as it was originally conceived).

I see where you see the distinction, but please excuse me for not caring since the park has been so stagnant and stale for so long.

With full respect, I'm not asking you to care, specifically. I'm trying to articulate why I care!

 

[OLSinFLA]

I really don’t see EPCOT as an MK clone at all and see it as it’s own unique park.

And I agree, the park needs more rides. Literally every WDW park including MK needs more. Doesn’t take away from the existing rides. It’s on corporate for literally letting Epcot rot since the mid ‘90’s.

Ratatouille was literally the first ADDITION to the ride lineup since Maelstrom and Body Wars debuted in ‘89. It’s not Guardians fault that Disney hasn’t added anything to Epcot in that span.


I guess I get how Tron is better than GotG for Epcot when it comes to building aesthetics. I actually am happy that the UoE show building survived as at least it's a themed building whereas Tron is just a box with a canopy. Aside from that though, what's the major difference? They're both coasters based on sci-fi properties.

On a conceptual level I really think it's tbd right now since there's no public reports about it yet. As I said, this is supposedly a big bang coaster that had the GotG IP attached during the design phase. If that's true, then isn't the concept "the birth of our Universe"? Just because something like that is being told by the GotG doesn't mean it can't fit in conceptually.

No, pretty much everything added has been clones or IP based. People see it as a Magic Kingdom for booze drinkers nowadays - it's most famous 'attraction" is drinking around the world. There's less and less unique about the park. My point stands though - the park ws never designed for 5 minute rides in Future World, and squeezing those in is what makes the park seem empty and less to so (besides eating and drinking). And I'm done

 

[Nico]

No, pretty much everything added has been clones or IP based. People see it as a Magic Kingdom for booze drinkers nowadays - it's most famous 'attraction" is drinking around the world. There's less and less unique about the park. My point stands though - the park ws never designed for 5 minute rides in Future World, and squeezing those in is what makes the park seem empty and less to so (besides eating and drinking). And I'm done

I guess my only question when I see this debate pop up is, “What next?” I understand opinions on the needs of Epcot vary, but it seems kind of clear that the company is moving in one very specific way. So for those who want longer rides, a reduction of IP, what do you do next? Do you stop going to EPCOT? Do you talk friends and family out of going? Start a petition? It’s obviously an important factor/issue for some, so I always wonder what everyone’s goal/personal behavioral response is.

Side note: I’m a therapist so individual processing, need development, and decision making are super interesting to me. Please don’t read any judgment into my question, because I truly don’t intend there to be any.

 

[Nick]

No, pretty much everything added has been clones or IP based. People see it as a Magic Kingdom for booze drinkers nowadays - it's most famous 'attraction" is drinking around the world. There's less and less unique about the park. My point stands though - the park ws never designed for 5 minute rides in Future World, and squeezing those in is what makes the park seem empty and less to so (besides eating and drinking). And I'm done

Once again, it's Disney's fault for any lack of attractions. With Wonders still not open to guests, an unused expansion pad in World Nature, and many, MANY unused expansion pads in World showcase, there's no excuse for Disney to not have more built so guests are constantly running into things and waits aren't as long.

Disney has been complacent with it's current pavilions instead of adding more for people to do. You can walk around the entirety of World showcase and will only bump into 3 rides along that long walk.

 

[belloq87]

I guess my only question when I see this debate pop up is, “What next?” I understand opinions on the needs of Epcot vary, but it seems kind of clear that the company is moving in one very specific way. So for those who want longer rides, a reduction of IP, what do you do next? Do you stop going to EPCOT? Do you talk friends and family out of going? Start a petition? It’s obviously an important factor/issue for some, so I always wonder what everyone’s goal/personal behavioral response is.

Side note: I’m a therapist so individual processing, need development, and decision making are super interesting to me. Please don’t read any judgment into my question, because I truly don’t intend there to be any.

Speaking only for myself (because I am not demanding “longer” rides -- though I wouldn’t complain -- and am not against IP integration into the park if done with care and effort), watching a park I felt a unique connection to become something I have less attachment to is frustrating. And this is a theme park forum, so obviously those of us who feel that way want to vent about it a bit as we attempt to come to grips.

I'm not going to stop going to the park (because where else can I experience Spaceship Earth or The American Adventure, just to name two?), but that doesn't mean I can't also question its current heading... to the extent that it even has a clear heading at this point.

I also do my best to be outspoken about when I actually enjoy something new at Epcot (the Ratatouille expansion, for example).

 

[Nico]

Speaking only for myself (because I am not demanding “longer” rides -- though I wouldn’t complain -- and am not against IP integration into the park if done with care and effort), watching a park I felt a unique connection to become something I have less attachment to is frustrating. And this is a theme park forum, so obviously those of us who feel that way want to vent about it a bit as we attempt to come to grips.

I'm not going to stop going to the park (because where else can I experience Spaceship Earth or The American Adventure, just to name two?), but that doesn't mean I can't also question its current heading... to the extent that it even has a clear heading at this point.

That I get, the forums are meant for discourse. I just wasn’t sure if there’s a threshold for people to take different courses of action or if what remains is enough to keep fans of old EPCOT still engaged. Thanks for your response!

 

[Nick]

Speaking only for myself (because I am not demanding “longer” rides -- though I wouldn’t complain -- and am not against IP integration into the park if done with care and effort), watching a park I felt a unique connection to become something I have less attachment to is frustrating. And this is a theme park forum, so obviously those of us who feel that way want to vent about it a bit as we attempt to come to grips.

I'm not going to stop going to the park (because where else can I experience Spaceship Earth or The American Adventure, just to name two?), but that doesn't mean I can't also question its current heading... to the extent that it even has a clear heading at this point.

I get what you're going through as a fan who was around to fully see to original EPCOT Center in it's glory days. Having not seen this myself or not remembering it myself from early trips makes it really hard for me to care too much about a lot of the Epcot transformation. I have certain opinions on IPs that fit and don't fit (as we discussed, Frozen clearly doesn't fit), but i'm okay with most everything else, although Nemo leaves a lot to be desired as a ride and I think more can be done with the IP.

I also know what it's like to see a company royally screw up something you love. I'm partially talking about Disney here still as I love DAK, but since my family bought into DVC in 2007 15 years ago, there's only been the addition of two rides and a loss of one. In the last 15 years, the park has only gained a net of one ride, which is ridiculous, but at least thematically, the park is in a good spot.

However, I have always been firmly against Zootopia for the park as anthropomorphic animals should be a no go in the park imo, but I do think Avatar is within theme as it hits the conservation theme and it also tackles the "mythical"/"fantastical" theme that Beastly Kingdom was supposed to target.

I think the real catch-22 of holding parks to extremely strict thematic rules is that it limits what will be built in the park, unless they change the vision, which has been done at Epcot. For example, the Zootopia ride is potentially really cool and by holding the pants standard to it, it means that's yet another ride that DAK won't get. Although tbh, i'd rather a theoretical Zootopia ride go to DHS or replace part of Storybook Circus at MK.

 

[Tbad556]

So, it looks like CM Preview dates are 4/17-5/2.

 

[Nick]

So, it looks like CM Preview dates are 4/17-5/2.

Yup, meant to post about this. D23 is May 15th.

 

[shiekra38]

I think saying "people don't like longer ride" and "they want more thrill" is the laziest excuse for turning EPCOT into MK clone.

What if I told you the Orlando theme park market has changed drastically since 1980?

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Please help me understand…drop the word “screenz” in a single post and there’ll be 50 responses about why it doesn’t matter because the GP doesn’t care and the fanboys are whiney.

Talk about Epcot rightfully moving away from an outdated model that only the most hardcore of fanboys even recognize and it’s, “forget the GP, they’re disrespecting the vision from 40 years ago!”

Genuinely just trying to understand so when I come back with my review after Passholder previews I’m not saying the “wrong” thing.

Good question - on the surface, it does appear to be hypocritical. After all, as you said, it's a contradiction of fanboys to justify their favorite place's decisions. But I disagree, I don't think either is that comparable in this situation. For one thing, the screenz debate is more foisted upon Universal rather than something they're actually engaging with (beyond listening to guest feedback and such). A better comparison would be asking how Diagon fits into USF's original missions and slogans.

Epcot has always been the "smarter" park, the one that had a little more thought and required a little more than the others. And Disney advertised it that way, back when "there's stuff for adults too" was considered a requirement for selling the resort. Disney also frequently claims they're the best, "you can't touch us", invoke Walt, and say they're so popular you don't have to advertise. They are also claiming these changes and additions in Epcot are true to the theme and spirit of the park. It's not just not true, it's patronizing.

"Well Epcot has to change". I agree!

"UoE was bad/terrible/old/Exxon propaganda/etc and should have gone." Yes.

"You just want Horizons back." No I don't.

"You don't want a coaster in the park." Another variant of the one above, I wanted a coaster in this park decades ago.

"You don't want IP in the park." There's been IP in the park for generations now, I don't have a problem with Nemo or Donald.

I just have an issue with this IP and its application in this park.

Frankly, what Disney should do is rename the park and rededicate it. If Disney thinks "adult magic kingdom" is the way forward, then do it, but don't lie to our faces that it isn't what you're doing.

 

[shiekra38]

Good question - on the surface, it does appear to be hypocritical. After all, as you said, it's a contradiction of fanboys to justify their favorite place's decisions. But I disagree, I don't think either is that comparable in this situation. For one thing, the screenz debate is more foisted upon Universal rather than something they're actually engaging with (beyond listening to guest feedback and such). A better comparison would be asking how Diagon fits into USF's original missions and slogans.

Epcot has always been the "smarter" park, the one that had a little more thought and required a little more than the others. And Disney advertised it that way, back when "there's stuff for adults too" was considered a requirement for selling the resort. Disney also frequently claims they're the best, "you can't touch us", invoke Walt, and say they're so popular you don't have to advertise. They are also claiming these changes and additions in Epcot are true to the theme and spirit of the park. It's not just not true, it's patronizing.

"Well Epcot has to change". I agree!

"UoE was bad/terrible/old/Exxon propaganda/etc and should have gone." Yes.

"You just want Horizons back." No I don't.

"You don't want a coaster in the park." Another variant of the one above, I wanted a coaster in this park decades ago.

"You don't want IP in the park." There's been IP in the park for generations now, I don't have a problem with Nemo or Donald.

I just have an issue with this IP and its application in this park.

Frankly, what Disney should do is rename the park and rededicate it. If Disney thinks "adult magic kingdom" is the way forward, then do it, but don't lie to our faces that it isn't what you're doing.

Well said, I have wanted a coaster in Epcot since Project Gemini and the Time Racers concept...I would have much rather had that as a theme with an original real-world-esque storyline.

Personally, I think a ride like Test Track 1.0 was how you do an Epcot thrill ride. It was real, grounded, taught you a little bit, but also turned those elements into a thrilling package and unique attraction.

Unfortunately, in the post-Potter era and hyper-synergy mindset, a ride like Time Racers would never be green-lit for Epcot as it has no IP tie-in

And this is where the major issue is with the park. To continue forward with how the park *should* be, you go against the grain of what Disney is currently utilizing its parks for

As far as "adult magic kingdom"...this is where Disney's marketing of Epcot is wildly aggravating to me...You can't please the Epcot purists and you can't overcorrect into hyper-IP territory, so you end up shooting straight in the center and get a generic buzzword-filled concept that's extremely mismatched in presentation.

As far as USF...the behind the scenes aspect was dead when they invented DVD extras, it was a massively flawed concept that allowed for theming integrity to be passed up in the name of it being a "backlot"

 

[OhHaiInternet95]

I get what you're going through as a fan who was around to fully see to original EPCOT Center in it's glory days. Having not seen this myself or not remembering it myself from early trips makes it really hard for me to care too much about a lot of the Epcot transformation. I have certain opinions on IPs that fit and don't fit (as we discussed, Frozen clearly doesn't fit), but i'm okay with most everything else, although Nemo leaves a lot to be desired as a ride and I think more can be done with the IP.

I also know what it's like to see a company royally screw up something you love. I'm partially talking about Disney here still as I love DAK, but since my family bought into DVC in 2007 15 years ago, there's only been the addition of two rides and a loss of one. In the last 15 years, the park has only gained a net of one ride, which is ridiculous, but at least thematically, the park is in a good spot.

However, I have always been firmly against Zootopia for the park as anthropomorphic animals should be a no go in the park imo, but I do think Avatar is within theme as it hits the conservation theme and it also tackles the "mythical"/"fantastical" theme that Beastly Kingdom was supposed to target.

I think the real catch-22 of holding parks to extremely strict thematic rules is that it limits what will be built in the park, unless they change the vision, which has been done at Epcot. For example, the Zootopia ride is potentially really cool and by holding the pants standard to it, it means that's yet another ride that DAK won't get. Although tbh, i'd rather a theoretical Zootopia ride go to DHS or replace part of Storybook Circus at MK.

I too love AK's thematic cohesion. I also love Zootopia and look forward to seeing how the land in SDL turns out. As you say, AK should naturally be next in line to receive something--sadly I can't really think of anything else that would be a natural candidate.

The overarching theme concept attempted by Epcot and DAK was admirable, and no one could've predicted how Potter would change the game of themed entertainment.