Guardians of the Galaxy — Mission: BREAKOUT Review
This post reviews the new Guardians of the Galaxy — Mission: BREAKOUT! attraction in Disney California, which is the first MARVEL attraction at Disneyland Resort. It offers a bit of strategy for experiencing the ride with as short a wait as possible. Page 1 of the post is spoiler-free, offering thoughts on the exterior of the attraction plus tips for doing it. Page 2 features on-ride photos, my review of the attraction itself, and other stuff.
I debated whether I should even review Guardians of the Galaxy — Mission: BREAKOUT! Most of the internet already has its mind made up one way or the other with regard to this attraction, and the amount of vitriol I’ve seen among fans (on both sides of the debate) has been pretty bad.
I enjoy debating the merits of Disney theme parks with those who both agree and disagree with me, but only when that discourse is civil. Personal attacks and just general rudeness are not only unpleasant (and we already have more than enough of that in realms that don’t involve the escape of theme parks), but are counterproductive. Debate is least persuasive when those who disagree with you feel they’ve been put on the defensive or are being attacked… (/tangent)
As divisive as the conversation shouting match about Guardians of the Galaxy — Mission: BREAKOUT! has been, it’s also been fascinating to some degree. There are clearly two polarized ‘camps’ with regard to this attraction. Those are demonstrative of a greater divide among fans, some of whom are more interested in the parks being Disney brand parks and those who view them as theme parks.
If you read my initial Guardians of the Galaxy — Mission: BREAKOUT! Announcement post, you might recall that I have fairly strong opinions about the concept. Unlike others who lamented the exterior, I mostly focused on its risk averse nature. Now that I’ve experience the attraction, I also have opinions of its substance.
Hopefully, I can present these in a thought-provoking way that’s engaging and respectful even to those who disagree with me…
While I emphasize the importance of thematic integrity a lot on this blog, I’m not as stringent about it as some Disney fans. I view the parks as evolving concepts, and I realize the general public quite clearly wants more of the brand. As someone who prefers theme parks and doesn’t have any particular affinity for most IPs, this is not my personal preference, but I do not think it’s an inherently a bad thing.
Me shaking my fist and yelling “get off my lawn” as the Big Thunder Ranch goat petting zoo is replaced would require a lack of recognition that the times, they are a’changin. Heck, even pining for more original concepts (like Mystic Manor) and less IP requires ignoring the general direction of theme parks today.
I’d love for brand and theme to coexist (and think that they can in large part), but I’m open to things being fudged a bit. For instance, Disney’s Hollywood Studios becoming a dumping-ground for intellectual property is okay by me. The ‘working studio’ ship sailed long ago there, and I think lands dedicated to Pixar, Star Wars, (hopefully) Muppets, and then generalized ‘old Hollywood’ is fine.
Disney California Adventure is somewhat akin to that park for me. The significant difference is that a major effort was just (well, ~5 years ago) made to give DCA a more cohesive theme, and really embrace its roots as a park about California.
This was particularly true in a design sense, as Buena Vista Street made the park’s opening act like Los Angeles in the 1920s, Cars Land provided the Route 66 vibe, and other place-making efforts throughout the park made it a more authentic (and idealized) version of California. Even the more recent Grizzly Peak Airfield overhaul sought to improve the park’s aesthetics and make it more representative of California.
Despite this, I don’t feel Disney California Adventure needs to be faithful to its namesake state in the strictest sense. After all, Cars is not set in California, nor is A Bug’s Life, nor is Little Mermaid…and so on. Theme can sometimes be a looser framework, and with attractions especially, there’s wiggle room for a thematically-faithful facade being a portal into something…not-so-faithful.
It’s long been rumored that Disney California Adventure would be the home to a Marvel land at Disneyland Resort. I was not, and am not, against that idea. Once the third gate Star Wars/Marvel ship sailed, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Marvel would have a significant presence at DCA, and that presence would be in Hollywood Land.
I assumed the Marvel Land would be a new-build, liking replacing Monsters Inc. Mike & Sulley to the Rescue, the various soundstages, backstage areas, and maybe even the Hyperion Theater. To me, this made sense as Marvel is a major property for Disney, and it and its fans deserve nothing less than a huge land with revolutionary attractions.
I know a lot of fans have been okay with the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror being replaced at Disney California Adventure because it’s inferior to the Florida version of the attraction. While it’s true that DCA’s Tower of Terror was inferior, if we followed this reasoning to its logical conclusion, it’d be okay to nix virtually every Walt Disney World attraction that has a Disneyland counterpart.
Walt Disney World fans could say goodbye to Pirates of the Caribbean, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, the Tiki Room, Space Mountain (arguably), Buzz Lightyear’s Space Ranger Spin, and Tomorrowland Speedway (okay, losing that last one wouldn’t be such a bad idea).
There are two problems with this. First, the vast majority of visitors to one coast never make it to the other. We encourage people to visit both on this blog, but dictating that someone “just go to Walt Disney World” (or vice-a-versa) is unreasonable, and does not comport with the practical reality that for most people, it’s one or the other.
Second, and more importantly, just because something is inferior does not mean it’s bad. You shouldn’t throw away a Canon DSLR that cost $2,000 just because every Nikon DSLR ever is nicer. Even the “inferior” Twilight Zone Tower of Terror was a top 5 attraction at Disney California Adventure.
Re-skinning an already popular attraction was a disservice to both Marvel, a brand with a ton of potential that would instead have to be shoehorned into the parameters of an existing concept, and the quality attraction it replaced.
My other hope with regard to Marvel being added to Disney California Adventure was it would be integrated in a way that worked thematically. Or, at the very least, that paid face to theme. Or, at the very, very least, that concealed the thematic inconsistencies.
Never did I expect Marvel to be integrated into DCA by taking over the tallest structure in the park. Not only did it appear unlikely from a thematic perspective, but from a rational one: Tower of Terror was already one of the most popular attractions in the park.
And yet, here we are.
A lot has been said about the exterior of Guardians of the Galaxy — Mission: BREAKOUT! It’s a Rorschach test of sorts for Disney fans. Personally, I don’t care for it. This is primarily because it towers over the California-themed park, with zero effort made at making it work thematically with the rest of the park. There’s not even a false-pretext or attempt at putting lipstick on a pig. It’s just there.
My other issue is that it doesn’t really hold any internal consistency. Joe Rohde described it best as a “kind of warehouse, fortress, power plant” (with added inspiration from oil refineries, because why not?). Looking at the new tower, you can see how it was inspired by all of those things…but why? How do those disparate styles all fit together and why would the Collector choose that hodgepodge of NIMBY-fodder as his museum?
Just looking at the building for a couple minutes, it’s hard to make sense of what it’s trying to be, or what purpose its ornamentation serves. Ultimately, I think you can boil the building down to being eye-catching and vaguely evocative of stylization that you might see in a comic book. Viewing the attraction in isolation and through that particular lens, I can see how some people might think it’s cool (although reasonable minds might differ on that). “Cool” seems to work for a lot of guests.
It does not work for me. Walt Disney Imagineering makes such a big show out of how everything they do is driven by “story.” There’s an elaborate story for every new restaurant, much less a towering E-Ticket. I don’t think it’s fair for Disney to tout its dedication to story when doing so suits its interest, but expect fans to turn a blind eye to story when it doesn’t. Questioning what the story is, how it works, etc., is not being nitpicky–it’s holding Imagineering to its own high standards…ones that WDI so regularly touts. With the exterior and its placement in DCA addressed, we’ll turn to the substance of Mission: Breakout on Page 2. (Warning: photo and plot spoilers ahead.) My take there might surprise you…
Nice Canon troll!
Is the 1974 guy from the old re-imagineering Disney blog? Gotta be, right?
Having never been to DL/DCA, I can’t say how good/bad it looks compared to ToT, and while the theming for the ride in and of itself seems fine, it is a bit…garish, shall we say? I think I can sum up 100% of the opinion in saying, “This is a cool ride, I just wish they had replaced something tired and lame with it, rather than something most people really liked, even if it was inferior to the WDW version somehow.”
With as much work as they have been doing to make you forget you are in a theme park (well, sorta…I’m talking immersion), this seems like a big obscene gesture in a way. But maybe, and I’m not saying it’s likely, there’s a plan? I don’t know enough about the park layout to say.
Great review. I know you and WDW1974 have both brought up the counter-point about replacing inferior rides at WDW.
That’s a bit of a flawed argument as WDW just has such a mess of things to fix already. DCA has its issues, but there is clearly enough rumours to know the biggest flaws on the East side of the park have a plan in place.
If Magic Kingdom didn’t have bigger fish to fry and general capacity issues… yes I have no problem with them replacing the likes of Pirates. With the caveat being the replacement needs to be a meaningful improvement (or at least a lateral move). Something you punted in your review, but begrudgingly did not deny.
In no world would it ever happen, but since we are talking in hypotheticals to make a point: I can only imagine the outrage circa early 2010’s if Disney were to replace Magic Kingdom’s Pirates with their movie-based Pirates IP. Had the replacement yielded Shanghai’s Pirates? Maybe not such a terrible move in the end.
Again, it would be a silly use of money in a park with capacity troubles on the best of days, but even the pinnacle of lesser attractions can be replaced. Never mind Speedway and Buzz whose days are numbered and limited tears would be shed over.
It’s certainly a privileged stance I look at things from, but at the end of the day I stand by no lesser attraction is a sacred enough cow to not be replaced. If it’s lesser to begin with, it means there is something that can and eventually should be improved upon.
The eight and under crowd will shed big, wailing tears for the loss of Speedway and Buzz. Limited in the scope of all the crowds, perhaps, but still meaningful. The fantasy of driving a car like a grown-up or taking on space aliens with your laser are fun ones.
Janell, I agree 100% that kids want to be able to drive a car, and I think Disney is about bringing those dreams to life. However, I think the current version is a bit, well, dated. It certainly doesn’t deserve the description of “tomorrowland” on it. It’s not futuristic. In fact, it’s kind of dirty and not very original. I honestly think the best thing Disney could do would be to keep the basic idea of it–letting kids drive cars–but turning it into something more futuristic. That can either be through lots of digital gizmos, or through innovative fuels and put a conservation spin on it or something. I don’t think the attraction should disappear, but it needs to be revamped.
But don’t touch Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger Spin.
Think it would’ve been really cool if they immersed you in that protective Groot ball with the white lights at some point during the ride. Would like to try it out but probably won’t make it to CA.
I don’t have any problems with re-skinning a ride to promote a Marvel IP. However, like you, I was flummoxed as to why they would spend a ton of money to create Buena Vista Square–taking a big step forward in thematic coherence–only to now take a big step back with transforming DCA’s most prominent feature into GotG. Team Anaheim needs to commit to one path or the other–trying to do both is just confusing. Now I wish they had just kept the bargain-basement Sunshine Plaza decorations and poured the Buena Vista money into better rides (Marvel or otherwise) to go along with GotG.
However, what’s done is done and based on what I’ve read, I’ll probably enjoy the ride itself.
That said, they’d better not do the same thing to ToT at DisneySea or I will go BALLISTIC.
As always, I appreciate your level of thoughtfulness and detail. Also, thanks for the humor!! #relevant /tangent
I agree Zane, I come here to read Tom’s work even if it’s something I’m not interested in!
Sell-out! At least Zenia and her flying monkeys as well as the good folks at the Disney Parks Blog will be (sorta) happy. Why oh why can you not be taking photos — with your amazing eye for detail — of all that is wrong with Disney parks to maybe embarrass them into doing something right (it does work!) … I guess a Spirit can have his fantasies.
Look, Tom, I think we’d likely be in total agreement as for the review. I loved the first GotG film, thought it was perfect summer popcorn flick. Enjoyed the second, but not as much as some folks named Drew.
I bet the ride is a hoot and I’ll enjoy it. But that simply can’t be the point with this any more than Star Wars being built on Frontierland expansion space at DL can be. It doesn’t belong there. Disney simply rewriting their own playbook to allow for something so ugly and out of place doesn’t change the fact it is ugly and out of place. What would John Hench say about conflicting narratives? Oh yeah, he’s been dead since 2004 and matters about as much as Walt.
Your point about it being the lesser of the versions of ToT was so good, I’d like to pull it for future use. I know WDW regulars will be thrilled at the new Jungle Book ride taking over from the crappiest Pirates of the Caribbean of them all. And I wonder what kind of off the shelf raft ride could replace the lesser BTMRR. And let’s not talk about all that Fantasyland acreage that will open soon.
The quality of this ride just flat out doesn’t matter one iota. If anything you wrote bothers me, it’s that you played right into the company’s hands by putting a review out at all.
This is all about a real battle over whether Disney Parks are theme parks or Disney BRAND/IP/franchise parks. It is a very real battle and one that anyone who loved Disney in the 20th century is losing. No sense of story, of place, of time is important now. So long as it is attached to one of Bob Iger’s acquisitions or franchises, it’s cool. Except it’s not.
Not at all. That’s the story I wish your friends in Burbank, Glendale, Anaheim, Orlando etc … were reading today. Not a ‘I don’t agree with Disney doing this, but they sure did a way cool job of it.’ That’s a win in their book …
I think we do agree on this, up until this point: “[t]he quality of this ride just flat out doesn’t matter one iota.”
To me, it very much does. While the ‘sin’ of the exterior remains, what is done is done. For all intents and purposes, that became a done deal when the project began, so it became an issue of whether Imagineering would make lemonade out of lemons. I can–and do–take issue with the exterior, but no amount of complaints are going to undo that at this point.
The current trend of having to make lemonade out of lemons bothers me in the first place, but I think there’s a point when it does cross into ‘man shaking his fist at cloud’ territory if the primary focus of one’s energy is lamenting things that are a done deal. I think it’s a better course of action to address issues in a more even-handed way. Reasonable minds may vary on that (and it appears we do), but it’s the approach I prefer.
Oh, and if it makes you feel any better, less than half of the people who have read this post have read the second page. So at least that’s a win? 😉
I get what you are saying, but it doesn’t matter in the context of should Disney have removed ToT, a ride that was very popular and a perfect thematic fit for the park and location, and replace it with a hideous comic book looking attraction? That’s the issue. When someone as widely respected as you sorta tells the fan community that it’s not only OK, it’s fun, we all lose a bit. They hate me. But they use you. And this isn’t a company that is warm or caring. Take a look at how they pretend that Meg Crofton and Tom Staggs never worked for Disney and weren’t part of bringing Pandora to life. They will knife you in the back at the soonest point they feel you are more a liability and they can use some friend of yours to submit pics to the DPB.
And, fine, Guardians Tower is a done deal (guess that old Spirit guy was right!) But multiple EPCOT projects are not. Lemonade out of lemons is not what Disney is supposed to be about. I’m just at a loss as to what their vision for WDW is. Because I see none … I see adding as many uncharge events as possible, I see adding more and more timeshares, I see overcrowded parks with huge dead zones and I see projects of varying quality in various states of becoming with one thing in common: they aren’t nearly enough and they are all tied to Bob Iger’s acquisitions.
But I’ll repeat what I said privately, you have vastly more power than you’re aware of.
I went on Monday, May 29th, and I thought it was an excellent attraction and ride. I felt it is a significant upgrade from Tower of Terror, yet a bit less in comparison. You covered so much ground that I felt a rebuttal is warranted.
1. Yes, looks out of place, but compared to the unfinished Hollywood Pictures Backlot, there’s no real cause for complaining. The Hyperion Theater has an unfinished lobby and entrance right before the Collector’s Fortress (the actual name). Compare with Disneyland’s Main Street with the Castle at the end. An uncanny resemblance.
2. Having watched the movie and sequel and the pre-show video on YouTube, I was quite aware of the story and backstory. Yet, it doesn’t really matter as any Disneyland story doesn’t require you to know it. It is actually irrelevant. No one has to justify the attraction’s storyline. We don’t need to justify why Soarin’ looks the way it does. (You’re in a hangar, go on some seats, and fly an unpowered glider across the world.) It defies comprehension for it’s just a theme park ride. That’s the Disney magic. We can’t explain it. So you’re right in the sense that it was mucked from the beginning. Pirates and Haunted Mansion’s stories are completely mess up. Pirates with the movies and Haunted Mansion with the various additions and Halloween overlay. Guardians has the most weird story and we just learned Peter Quill’s father is a powerful god-like alien, but Peter was able to kill him.
3. The ride’s mechanics are the same, but they changed out the projections for high resolution screens. I felt this improved upon the original ride. Tower of Terror emphasized the drops. The lift is only there to drop you. Guardians Mission Breakout is both a rush upward (airtime) and the plunge downward while experiencing the rooms several times. There was more to experience at the same time. Tower of Terror was all about suspense and anticipation. None of that pretense exists for Guardians.
In Conclusion: It is best to not look at this new ride as the former Tower of Terror. It is the beginning of the new Marvel Land. Eventually, they should replace all of Hollywood Land with Marvel for it makes no sense to keep anything there. The Animation Academy could be re-skinned with a new façade like the eclectic look of a fantasy alien world.
Hollywood Pictures Backlot is awful, which is why that’s another DCA 1.0 remnant that should be replaced. It should not serve as an excuse for other thematic weakness.
I have a tough time with the comparison to Sleeping Beauty Castle. That is the iconic centerpiece in the hub of Disneyland. It’s the exception that proves the rule. By contrast, the Collector’s Fortress is in a far off corner of Disneyland, and it in no way “ties together” Hollywood Land and ‘a bug’s land.’
Otherwise, good points!
I was really upset when I heard they were making this change. I love Twilight Zone and, like a lot of people, I didn’t think this would really work thematically.
But, two things have really won me over. First: this looks awesome, both inside and out. I love all of the Marvel artifacts and I’m so excited to see things from other marvel movies as well as Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. being incorporated.
Second: I did the Warner Bros. studio tour. Going there and seeing the way they make fake worlds and create movie and tv magic right in the middle of California, kind of made me feel like seeing a random chunk of an alien planet on a street in California made sense. It feels very Hollywood to me to have a giant piece of a film stuck right next to “just California”. I can totally understand where reasonable minds would differ here, but it feels very Hollywood and very California to me.
I do wish they had built a new attraction rather than reskinning and old, and already popular one. But, having seen what they did with it, I’m excited to ride it.
Aside from gratuitous camera-brand digs, a great review. 🙂 This project was announced last year right after we visited Disneyland/CA, so I am glad that we got to experience ToT there before it was gone. (I am among those who are less upset about the change given the superiority of the WDW original.) It does look fun, although the use of motion-sickness-inducing screens has me a bit concerned, personally. Regarding decorative elements that don;t make particular sense, that is essentially what you have once you leave the library in ToT. The unifying theme is rust (or apparent rust), but there is nothing there that has anything to do with the reality of hotel mechanical systems. I love it, but it is anything but realistic. In the completely fictional universe of GoG, I am more than willing to accept some incoherence.
One unanswered question: Is Howard the Duck in evidence?
Camera digs? The way I see it, that was a compliment! I’m saying that, contrary to popular opinion, you should not just throw away your Canon DSLR! 😉
Fair point about the boiler room in Tower of Terror. I guess I give that a bit of a pass since it (mostly) takes a less is more approach. By contrast, there’s a lot of new “stuff” in the boiler room for Guardians, and people have praised this as added theming/detail. I don’t think many people praised the boiler room before, beyond perhaps it adding to the eerie ambiance.
Howard the Duck is feature in the gallery/lobby video within a box. But not physically in the room
Interesting and thoughtful review.
I’m a fan of TOT and I loved how it fit in with the 1920-30 era of Buena Vista Street. It’s sad that it’s gone.
We went to WDW last fall and rode TOT there several times, and I don’t think the Florida version is better than the DCA version. It’s too bad that such a fabulous and fitting ride was replaced with something that seems so incongruous to it’s surroundings.
I enjoy superhero movies, but I have no desire to see Guardians of the Galaxy. The movie looks silly rather than exciting like a typical superhero movie. I plan to try the ride the next time I’m at Disneyland, if it’s still there. ; ) It probably will be “fun.” I sounds like I’m going to have to bite the bullet and watch the movie so I’ll understand what’s going happening on the ride. 🙁
I think it’s a good idea for Disney to build a Marvel Land, as long as it doesn’t turn into another Universal Studios or Six Flags, which is where that new ride looks like it belongs. I expect Disney Imagineers to develop more substantial and thoughtful ideas than what I see and hear about this new ride.
Guardians of the Galaxy is an excellent movie. It’s one of my favorites, actually. Totally different than your typical superhero movie, but excellent in its own way.
Thanks for the review. I’m excited to come see this some day. Never got to ride on the original at DCA only at WDW. What made the one at WDW superior to the one at DCA?
This change honestly makes the ride a far bigger draw for me than it was as Tower of Terror. Maybe it’s because I’m a big chicken when it comes to drops (or maybe that I have an unhealthy affection for the sheer joy of the Guardians movies) but I’ve never seriously considered going on Tower of Terror (or any ride like it) before I heard this was happening. I’m optimistic for it (even if the exterior is odd looking even now that I’ve read up on the “lore” of the ride).
For what it’s worth, Mission: Breakout made Sarah sick, and that’s never happened with Tower of Terror. She thinks it was because of the non-stop motion of the elevator, coupled with the screens in GotGMB. I had no issues.
Just a heads up in case motion sickness is a concern!
As always, great write up. I wanted to hopefully piece together some parts here. While the placemaking may seem “shoehorned”, a Marvel land to be placed behind here is undeniable. Furthermore, this new fortress will represent the entrance to another world, better yet, realm. Joe Rhode mentioned in an interview on Thursday that there will be burnt marks added into the ground to signify where the Collector plopped down this fortress. BUT, it’s not that he just dropped it down on Earth… but rather opened a portal to the realm of Knowhere. Something that I believe is represented in the Marvel universe. The attraction is self aware of itself, but also of DCA as it is mentioned he placed this here so he can attract the guest of the park.
The exterior is shiny and elaborate at the top to luehr guests his building, but more menacing on the lower portion and inside to help the guest understand that there may not be something quite right about this guy. Call this scape goats if you will, but wanted to bring mention to this.
Also, the whole place is ran on a generator of sorts as mentioned in the queue. The top portion, which lights up at night is to signify all the electricity inside. The recently added power cords with lights were a last minute addition as they were not on at the media event. This is just to help understand the amount of electricity within the fortress to help secure the Guardians.
He has collected items from around the Marvel universe, therefore I don’t find his collection odd… even with Figment… as he could have opened his realm to our world, like he did with his fortress, to find these other things. PLUS… Figment does have his own comic after all.
While these items may seem like a stretch, I do feel attention was applied to every aspect. And furthermore… this leads to a fantastic possible future entrance and even possible placemaking for the area if a Marvel land is created.
I’ve heard that explanation, and it doesn’t pass the smell test for me. Visual intrusion is visual intrusion, and no matter how it’s spun, that building does not fit thematically within Disney California Adventure. Imagineering can try to explain that away as much as they’d like, but to me, it’s ex post facto justification for the desire to quickly inject Marvel into an existing attraction.
I suspect the rest of Marvel Land will be excellent, and I hope it is more subtlety in the way it’s integrated into DCA, but there’s really no getting around the look of the Guardians Tower. It is what it is.
I agree 100% with you on that point Tom! It is particularly jarring from Buena Vista Street, whereas the old ToT worked from there. There is even a black & white framed photo in the Carthay Circle Restaurant of the Carthay with the Hollywood Tower Hotel in the background & it works beautifully.
Totally get what you are saying Tom. It is no doubt jarring. I too would prefer something in place that would match site lines… but as much as everyone talks about site lines of the old Tower, did it really make sense to see Tower of Terror from Grizzly peak/Condor Flats runway? Does it make sense to see it from the Winery area or from Little Mermaid? I just don’t think it’s enough of an argument to fault it for.
I did get a chance to have a impromptu talk with Joe Rhode on Thursday, and he could not stress enough that he would not move forward with this unless they did it right. I think they really did. He states they must start somewhere, and this is the start. Sadly it is odd for the time being. But, let’s say the Marvel Land does get built behind Fliks or even encompasses some of Fliks Fun Fair… would it make sense for ToT to still be there?
Sorry Corene, the poster has been replaced with an unfortunate adjustment to the original… they just changed the verbiage to say Carthay Circle yet kept it an outline of Tower. Doesn’t really make sense now.
I mean…you can see the actual Hollywood Tower in Los Angeles from the mountains of Griffith Park or nearby freeways, and Palace of Fine Arts (Little Mermaid building) is visible in San Francisco from other natural features.
The landscape of California is pretty diverse. There are places where mountain, oceans, skyline, etc. are all in the same field of view. All of the structures in DCA “work” together because they are stand-ins for actual aspects of the California landscape, or things that could conceivably be there. Guardians Tower does not work the same way, because it’s not something you’d actually see in the landscape of California.
I feel ya, I really do. I guess I just I just don’t find the a Tower with lightning damage and destroyed elevator shafts is fitting to see from Condor Flats/Grizzly Peak or from a near Boardwalk just as much as a fortress from not-of-this-world. It’s not like you can’t see Tomorrowland items from Fantasyland or Thunder Mountain from New Orleans Square. We are used to these broken site lines, but not of the fortress.
In a perfect world, Marvel Land shouldn’t even enter into DCA. However, without an alternative for them to add their new valuable IP that people WANT to see, it is something we will have to make do. With the push to add Marvel Land to the west coast, I guess I just don’t see the alternative.
I agree with you mostly on the entire write up, just when it comes to the exterior, as much as I was a nay-sayer when it was first announced… I have since drank the kool-aid. I often try to combat the arguments to a solution to the problem. As you say, it is what it is now, I still want to think of what would have been a better option for them with the notion that a Marvel land was inevitable for the area.
Thanks for the replies btw! First time I have been able to have a productive, constructive discussion of this attraction.
Great write up Tom. I wanted to also let you know the link is briken to the Disneyland planning guide
Thanks for the heads up! I’ve fixed it. 🙂
Thanks for the review. Tower of terror is one of my favorite rides ever. I share the same sentiment that it is too bad they had to replace a classic ride, but this new ride seems like it’s going to be great. I do wish they didn’t rush the outside so much. Why would “The Collector” (ancient powerful space hoarder) choose to keep his priceless artifacts in a giant junk-hole? Personally, I wish it had more of that elaborate space-castle estate vibe to it. It seems like the Florida Tower of Terror is safe for now. I hope they never lose the haunted 1940s vibe, they could even break the ties with twilight zone, as long as they keep the same feel to it, to lose all of the Tower of Terrors would really be a shame. Oh, but update that “4D” room and do something cool in there, come on (one of my favorite rides).
WDW has a longer and faster Big Thunder with a better queue. Not sure how you can say DL’s is better. Space Mountain at WDW has more drops, 2 different tracks, an awesome show scene, and is faster.
Nice takeaway. 😉
What I find odd is the timing of this. I mean they’re already working in Star Wars Land why in creation did they take this in at the same time? It does look fun and I’m sure my kids will like it- I’m a chicken so I never even rode Tower of Terror- but it just seems like a bad planning decision. They could have held off and then built a Marvel land after Star Wars was finished and it likely would have been much better or at least more cohesive. It’s really just fells oddly temporary with the way it was handled.
I think the timing of this is that Disneyland’s management is realizing when Star Wars Land opens, they will need a simultaneous draw at Disney California Adventure to draw crowds away from Disneyland. This last ~12 months have crushed Disneyland with crowds, and this is only a mild precursor to that.
I’d expect big announcements for DCA at the D23 Expo.
Remember when Disneyland was all imagination. Not as much of bringing movies to life as entering imaginary worlds. Ah, that was nice. That being said my grandkids love Disneyland. It speaks to their imaginations just as much and they can’t wait to ride Guardians. Meeting Spiderman is as fun as meeting Mickey and that is all that matters. Wonderful family fun and memories. Thats the point, right?
Thank you for a measured and honest review. I have been against this from the beginning, though making it clear I’m not a Marvel fan. I saw the first trailer for Guardians and insisted it had to be a joke. But still, I understand from a business end how Marvel was going to make its tacky way into the parks. I just still think this is, as you so perfectly put it, lipstick on a pig.
My argument fore Pandora was similar for this, it just doesn’t mean anything to me. Though, I suppose, looking at the box office, I’m in the minority on both counts. I don’t know which camp this puts me in.
Thanks for the review, Tom. Frustrating that instead of adding capacity to a strained resort, Disney elected to reskin an already popular ride. Hope to see a full trip report from your recent Orlando excursion!
-Michael
Definitely disappointing, but I think it came down to speed. They got this open in roughly 6 months. That’s turnaround time you’d never see for a new attraction.