“You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone!”
Rod Serling intoned these words at the start of each season three episode of his famed series, and this narration became the lasting legacy of The Twilight Zone. In 1994, nearly 20 years after Serling’s death, he became an anomalous presence at Walt Disney World, anomalous because The Walt Disney Company possessed no ownership interest in the program. They had no connecting ties of substance with Serling, either. A company built and sustained by its internal intellectual properties sought a new enterprise that would feature an outsider’s storyline. It was a daring change for Disney, and the results were universally positive.
The Twilight Zone: Tower of Terror is generally regarded as one of the greatest attractions in Disney history, and that means it’s one of the best rides in the history of theme parks. You, the readers of this site, have voted it the best theme park attraction in the world. Despite its track record of sustained excellence, the ride is going away forever at Disney California Adventure. Its long-term fate at Walt Disney World is also in doubt.
And it’s all your fault.
Well, it is, but the explanation as to why is convoluted and novel. Guests at theme parks are always seeking out the next big thing. Pop culture at large functions the same way. We as a people grow bored of what’s known and established. We seek new ideas, concepts, and stories to excite us. We take for granted the bird we have in hand, overvaluing the two in the bush. Due to our constant quest for new and different, theme park vendors like Disney must operate under the constant strain of unearthing the next big thing. When they find something new and popular, they have to go all-in on their discovery.
No, I’m not talking about Frozen here, although the same logic applies. Instead, I’m talking about a science fiction franchise that Disney acquired in a multi-billion transaction. It’s not Star Wars, either. It’s a tale involving a plucky band of misfits who come together to, well, guard a galaxy. In 2014, audiences worldwide fell in love with these unlawful nomads forced into acts of heroism.
Disney took notice of the soaring value of one of their properties. The ascension of this IP allowed them to consider alternatives for one that they didn’t own, and the rest is tragic theme park history. What follows is the tale of the Twilight of the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror and the corresponding rise of the Guardians of the Galaxy. This story will reveal just how fickle Disney can act when a huge financial outlay is in play and just how much they want their own properties to comprise the entirety of their theme parks. It’s not a happy tale. Then again, Twilight Zone episodes aren’t known for their happy endings.
Binge watching to glory
Image: CBS
Our story starts with a group of Disney employees and a television. Their job title that week was one that many of us have done for free. These cast members binged their way through 156 episodes of The Twilight Zone. It’s great work if you can get it.
Perhaps I should back up a step to explain what they were doing. During the early days of Disney-MGM Studios, the third gate at Walt Disney World suffered from a fatal flaw. It lacked the volume of attractions needed to entice theme park tourists to visit. From the day it opened for the first time in 1989, guests demonstrated a noted lack of enthusiasm for the concept of a movie-based theme park (even if guest numbers were initially high). On top of that, after a slow start the following year, rival Universal Studios Florida soon proved to have a more impressive selection of thrill rides.
Then-CEO Michael Eisner was furious about the park’s performance. He’d spent years brokering deals to bring the park to fruition. It was intended as his stamp on the Disney brand, his legacy that would last for decades after he’d left the company. Instead, it was derisively described as a half-day park. Frankly, that was too generous. Spending half a day at Disney-MGM Studios could feel like an eternity since there was so little to do. The park was in danger of failing, and everyone involved understood this irrefutable fact.
What Disney-MGM Studios needed was a Space Mountain, an It’s a Small World, or a Pirates of the Caribbean. The third gate lacked an attraction that was immediately recognizable to potential vacationers, one that would make me them feel compelled to visit the park. Imagineers got to work on developing this new ride experience.
It all started with Mel Brooks…
Image: Wiki Commons
A Disney dream team started the process. Involved with the earliest blueprints were Disney Legend Marty Sklar, Imagineer C. McNair Wilson, Eisner the CEO, and director Mel Brooks. Why was Brooks there? That’s an odd piece of Disney folklore and Hollywood history.
Eisner’s previous career as an agent and studio boss had given him access to some of the most talented players in Hollywood. He’d developed a strong relationship with Brooks when the latter man read a screenplay provided to him by one of his former assistant directors. Brooks loved this dramatic story and asked Eisner, the head of Paramount Pictures at the time, to provide the resources to make the film.
For his part, Eisner was extremely confused at this request. The world knows Brooks for his goofy comedies. The feature film he wanted to make was totally humorless. Eisner justified his reputation as a believer in talent by gambling $5 million on the project. He believed in Brooks as a content creator so much that he agreed to bankroll the film, which is one you may have heard of: The Elephant Man.
The point is that Brooks and Eisner had a strong working relationship and healthy respect for one another. Once Eisner had established his movie studio theme park premise, he needed something to distinguish it. The CEO knew all too well that Universal Studios Florida would arrive in 1990, only a year after Disney-MGM Studios. If their attractions were better, Walt Disney World would seem damaged. The more pressing matter for Eisner on a personal level was that his legacy would be in question. His ego on this subject was a contributing factor in many of his decisions as head of Disney. That’s why his later fall from grace at the company is the all the more fitting.
Before his career collapse, Eisner prioritized Disney-MGM Studios. It was his theme park baby. He asked Brooks to come and brainstorm with two of the best Imagineers still on the payroll. From the beginning, Eisner wasn’t averse to a tie-in to an intellectual property outside the Disney collective. For all its storied cinematic classics, horror wasn’t really the company’s thing. That’s something that has changed a bit since the 1980s, but it was an accurate summation at the time.
Image: 20th Century FOX
Brooks loved the idea of one of his iconic tales becoming a signature attraction at Walt Disney World. He even pointed out that he had a natural fit. Young Frankenstein satisfied Disney’s goal of a gothic horror tale. It was also silly enough that it could remain child-friendly. At the time, Eisner wasn’t married to the idea that Disney-MGM Studios had to cater to children. He was also savvy enough to acknowledge that burning that bridge needlessly would look like a massive miscalculation to company outsiders. History indicates that Eisner wasn’t averse to picking fights for the wrong reasons. He didn’t actively seek them out, though.
Frankie say relax, Disney say good-bye
Image: 20th Century FOX
So why didn’t Castle Young Frankenstein had become a reality? Finances and egos, mostly.
Brooks worked hand in hand with Disney Imagineers to build a viable blueprint for this attraction. All parties agreed that it would stand out visually within the park, similar to other castles at the various Disney gates. This castle would have a moat that guests could only cross thanks to a drawbridge. A Bavarian village would reside nearby. Here, the villagers would warn guests of the impending danger at the castle. Simultaneously, they would sell snacks and theme park merchandise. Hey, if someone’s about to go to their doom, why not clean out their wallets first? They won’t need money where they’re going.
Eisner adored the idea of a functional imaginary village residing at Disney-MGM Studios. That’s the type of splashy headline he sought throughout his career as corporate CEO. He only had one well-founded reservation. He just wasn’t sure Young Frankenstein resonated enough as an intellectual property. He may have underestimated the film in this regard. It earned $86.3 million in 1974, when the average movie ticket cost $1.89 (and audiences presumably had to walk 10 miles uphill in the snow to see it). That’s the equivalent of $385 million today. Yes, Young Frankenstein sold more tickets in 1974 than The Secret Life of Pets or The Jungle Book sold in 2016.
Eisner feared something beyond the lasting popularity of Young Frankenstein, though. He also worried about having to pay for the rights to this project. Had Young Frankenstein been a Disney project, Peter Boyle would have become a Disneybounding icon, I’m sure.
Call Marge re: horror
Image: Warner Bros.
Instead, Eisner chose to evolve the premise beyond gothic satire. He wanted something truly scary, a premise that hasn’t always worked out well for the company. There’s a reason why Mickey explicitly states that his party is not so scary. Ever since the opening day of Disneyland, the plaintive cries of children had bothered company executives. Snow White’s Scary Adventures pushed those boundaries too far for some. That’s why the attraction proved so controversial in its early years.
From Disney’s perspective, consumers had grown smarter and more jaded over those 35 years. They felt a horror ride wouldn’t prove quite as problematic as the 1990s began. To wit, they explored building an entire attraction around the works of Stephen King. Please take a moment to spin that thought around in your head. Is there anyone in the world LESS Disney than Stephen King? His version of It’s a Small World would include the dolls coming to life, climbing onto the boat, and Chucky-ing everyone onboard.
While details of the King version of the Tower of Terror are largely lost to time, a belief persists that the infamous Stanley Hotel from The Shining could have come into play. That would fit with the other early blueprints for the attraction, all of which featured a hotel in some way. Somehow, I just don’t see a recreation of The Shining fitting well at the Most Magical Place on Earth, so they probably performed the correct determination in ditching the concept. Still, the thought of Pennywise, Randall Flagg, and Annie Wilkes hanging out at Walt Disney World is intriguing.
A wondrous land of imagination
Image: CBS
As you know, The Twilight Zone became the synergistic partner once ideas involving Young Frankenstein and Stephen King fell by the wayside. They saw many more positives to the intellectual property than negatives, at least at the time. The primary con was that Disney didn’t own The Twilight Zone. In exchange for using the title and the undead services of Rod Serling, who was 15 years dead by this point, Disney agreed to pay a hefty licensing fee. Remember this later. It’s critical to the conversation.
What did Disney get for their money? The pro of The Twilight Zone was that they could construct their own eerie story of gothic horror under the umbrella of a proven television series. Disney Imagineers would have complete control over the storyline, and they’d face no meddling from powerful celebrities who were currently alive. For this reason, Mel Brooks dropped out of the project while Stephen King never received an official offer. What had once been known in blueprints as Mel Brooks’ Hollywood Horror Hotel was now merely a scary building of undefined backstory.
Disney warmed to the idea of The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, a giant building with a sadistic history. Once the favored resort of Hollywood celebrities, it fell victim to a weather event that had supernatural consequences. Five people traveling on the same elevator wound up trapped in an eternal void. The underlying implication is that anyone who takes an elevator ride could fall victim to the same fate.
The grim tale Disney Imagineers constructed was an extension of that binge watching television session. They dutifully took notes about all the clever aspects of The Twilight Zone. From that voluminous list, they culled a few ideas that became the backbone of the attraction. What they emphasized was not any specific story from the series but instead the underlying tone.
The conceit of the show was that Rod Serling’s narration placed the pieces on the board for a puzzle of the mind’s eye. The story that followed would challenge viewers to guess the mystery while appreciating the paranormal elements as allegories for modern living. Disney wanted to honor the legacy of The Twilight Zone by crafting a supernatural thrill ride that felt stolen from one of the hidden dimensions Serling referenced in his introduction.
The faulty tower
Image: Disney
I could spend the rest of this piece listing the accolades of the Tower of Terror, but you know the broad strokes. It’s in the conversation for most triumphant Disney ride of all-time. It’s also the favorite attraction of the overwhelming majority of readers of Theme Park Tourist. It is, in simple terms, a masterpiece.
What’s amazing is that at its core, this is the basic drop tower ride that you’ll find at theme parks virtually everywhere. The difference, as always, is in Disney’s theming. In choosing Rod Serling and The Twilight Zone as the baseline for the Tower of Terror, Disney could build a supernatural tale that didn’t need much backstory. It simply needed to provide a creepy vibe for guests. That’s Rod Serling’s motif.
Disney Imagineers delighted in finding the perfect accentuating touches for a long-abandoned hotel. They emphasized the most chilling aspect of the Tower of Terror. It had stood largely untouched by time for decades, almost as if it existed in its own pocket universe. Then, they added slight elements of aging to show that while the hotel building may seem eternal, the decor inside was subject to the ravages of time, at least somewhat. Dust has accumulated, accoutrements are unkempt, and a few items didn’t survive the (possibly supernatural) lightning strike.
Walking into the Tower of Terror is an incongruous mix of classic 1930s Hollywood extravagance and horror movie-esque abandoned building. The 13-star hotel (no, really) looks like somewhere Cary Grant might have stayed. Simultaneously, it also gives off the same vibe as Crystal Lake, the place where Jason Voorhees won’t stay dead. The disconnect between what it was and its current state only adds to the pervasive feeling that the Tower of Terror is just plain wrong.
Once they had the details right about the hotel theming, they could explore the drop tower construct, improving it through Disney plussing. Imagineers did something particularly clever here. They randomized the ride, at least from the perspective of the user. A standard drop tower does one of two things. It either pulls the bottom out from under the rider, thrusting them to the ground at virtual gravity, or it throws the rider into the air. The technology is similar both ways, and while drop towers are undeniably fun, they’re also predictable. That’s precisely because so many amusement parks have them.
Disney went a different way with the concept. They built a lift system that wouldn’t function the way that the rider would anticipate. Instead, the randomization means that at any point, the elevator cart could go up or down. Everyone onboard has to hold their breath and wait for each new surprise. Some iterations of the ride even include fake endings to add further intrigue and excitement.
The highlight is when they reach the level where they can see daylight, a sublime introduction of a basic element into the darkest of dark rides. The bright light offers the rider brief hope of escape before the cart speeds back into the blackness of the abyss below. The brief glimpse of the outside world is a cruel tease.
The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror is a drop tower in the same way that Michael Jordan is a basketball player. Yes, the description is true in a broad sense, but it almost diminishes the party involved by describing the entity in the most basic way possible. Drop towers are straightforward and stylistically lacking. The Tower of Terror is a gorgeous, thematic building filled with impeccable touches and a ride that reduces the heartiest of individuals to screams of horror. And delight.
So, what changed about the situation that caused the Happiest Place on Earth to diminish one of the greatest Imagineering achievements ever? Blame a foul-mouthed, weapon-lovin’ raccoon.
Excellent value
Image: Marvel
Over the past 20 years, The Walt Disney Corporation has acquired some amazing properties. They scored ESPN and then evolved it into the most powerful cable channel ever. They bought Pixar and thereby redeemed their flagging animation division. They even picked up Star Wars, a franchise few observers believed George Lucas would ever sell.
What was their bravest acquisition? That answer might surprise you. In August of 2009, Disney purchased Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion. Coincidentally or not, that’s the same purchase price as Star Wars, but financial experts agreed that buying Lucasfilm was a masterstroke. Many in the industry felt that Disney overpaid for Marvel, a company that was only 13 years removed from bankruptcy proceedings.
The timing of the deal was also curious. Marvel delivered a blockbuster with Iron Man, a film that reminded viewers why Robert Downey Jr. is so respected as an actor. Then, they failed to do the same with The Incredible Hulk, which earned basically the same as The Hulk five years earlier. And the latter title was a huge box office disappointment. Marvel’s current status as a box office powerhouse was merely a possibility when Disney purchased the company…and a fairly remote one at that.
Disney wasn’t overly concerned about box office, oddly enough. They deduced that their powerhouse marketing arm could take care of that part of the equation. Instead, they wanted the toy sales that come from Spider-Man, Wolverine, and the various Avengers. The fact that they’ve released megahit after megahit in the interim is a serendipitous bonus. The most shocking of these successes, however, is one set in outer space.
Jack Reacher as a stuffed animal
Image: Disney
Anybody who tells you that they were a huge fan of the Guardians of the Galaxy prior to 2014 is lying. Okay, maybe not EVERYONE, but it’s like 99.99 percent of people. This convoluted story of an Earthling somehow befriending malcontents from alien species rarely sold well as a comic book. Marvel rebooted it on countless occasions, constantly trying to find the right kind of alchemy. They hoped to turn what they believed was a solid marketing opportunity into a hot-selling title. It just never happened.
With the benefit of hindsight, you can see Marvel’s point, though. With the Guardians of the Galaxy, they believed that they had a Firefly-ish crew of morally ambiguous but largely well intended “heroes.” They also knew that Star Wars sells in all formats, including comics. Their take on the same premise should do well, at least in theory.
When Disney took over Marvel Entertainment, an unlikely possibility unfolded. Disney execs carefully evaluated all of their new intellectual properties. They weren’t grading their new titles the same way that Marvel had when it acted alone. Instead, they had very different goals, ones that oddly aligned with Guardians of the Galaxy.
Disney likes toy sales. They prioritize merchandising. While Guardians of the Galaxy was a strange title with only a cult following, it had two characters of great importance. One was a sentient tree with the universe’s most limited vocabulary (even Hodor knows three words). The other is a gun fan with a surly disposition who happens to be adorably fuzzy, something he knows and resents. Where everyone else had seen an island of misfit toys, Disney saw a character like Rocket Raccoon as a marketing opportunity. What’s better than a stuffed animal? A stuffed animal with a gun. He’s Jack Reacher as a nocturnal mammal with a natural facial mask. Kids want to hug him, and adults can’t help but laugh at the absurdity of the premise.
Hooked on a Feeling
Image: Disney
Disney’s movie execs got left holding the bag on this one. Their corporate overlords handed down a forceful edict. There WOULD be a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, and it needed to hit big enough that kids would demand Rocket Raccoon dolls and Dancing Groots for Christmas.
A talented writer named Nicole Perlman began work on this screenplay soon after Disney acquired Marvel. In 2010, Marvel execs swore that this movie could become a reality, something few people believed at the time because, well, it’s a Guardians of the Galaxy movie. To comic book fans, it’s the equivalent of a Doom Patrol or Inhumans movie. It sounds great until the numbers crunchers get involved. Then, reality strikes quickly.
When Comic Con 2012 rolled around, a different reality set in. The new Disney-fied Marvel announced that they WERE making Guardians of the Galaxy, and in early 2014, a trailer debuted. It offered a distinctly strange comedic take, and the odd musical accompaniment of Hooked on a Feeling, a long forgotten hit from the 1960s. The clip broke the internet as people vehemently argued over the quality of what they’d watched. What was most important to the conversation was that sales of Hooked on a Feeling increased 700 percent the day after the trailer’s release. Guardians of the Galaxy was provoking a reaction in people. In the movie industry, heightened awareness is almost always good.
Galaxy Successfully Guarded
Image: Disney
By the time the release date approached, Disney execs felt some level of discomfort with Guardians of the Galaxy. They’d spent a terrifying $200 million on the project, so they needed to see some results, even allowing for later toy sales. The tracking indicated that the film would do well, but what happened next was stunning.
Guardians of the Galaxy opened to $94.3 million and went on to earn over $333 million domestically plus roughly $440 million internationally. The staggering global take of almost $775 million was good enough for third place for the entire year. Equally critical from Disney’s perspective was that Guardians of the Galaxy bested Maleficent to stand as their biggest blockbuster of the year. This was not too long after The Motley Fool had stated unequivocally that the film would flop.
Only five years after having comic book fans, the most loyal potential viewing audience, scoff at the idea of a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, Disney hit the motherlode. This film outperformed Captain America: The Winter Soldier, a de facto sequel to their most successful movie ever, The Avengers. And Christmas toy sales of Rocket Raccoon and the gang were amazing. Disney couldn’t keep Dancing Groots in stock.
Frozen all over again
Image: Disney
Over a period of a few months, Guardians of the Galaxy ascended from its prior status as a potential flop into one of the strongest Marvel properties. And what does Disney do when a movie excels at the box office and in merchandise sales, class? Come on, you know this one. You watched as Walt Disney World suffered from an outbreak of Frozen Fever. They slapped Elsa and Anna on anything they could license and sell.
The same is true of Guardians of the Galaxy, and that’s where this story takes a harsh, sad turn. Disney now has an intellectual property that they feel still has tremendous growth potential. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is the studio’s anchor title for the first week of May of 2017. That’s the same spot where they previously released The Avengers and Captain America: Civil War. It’s one of the biggest movie weekends of the year. They wouldn’t give it to Guardians 2 unless they had great expectations.
Disney views their outer space comic book title as a backup Star Wars. They think that it covers all the same demographics while adding a heapin’ helpin’ of Chris Pratt charm. Disney once purchased the entirety of Marvel for $4 billion, money that The Avengers alone has earned back for them. They see Guardians of the Galaxy as a second multi-billion property. They want to elevate its candidacy and maximize its earning potential wherever possible.
Yes, I mean Disney parks.
I heard a rumor
Image: Disney
You heard it, too. We all dismissed it since the idea seemed so ludicrous…much like the idea of a Guardians of the Galaxy movie. This IP is sneaky in that way. The rumor none of us believed was that Disney would replace The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, one of their greatest attractions, with Guardians of the Galaxy. It seemed funny at first, but some of us started to worry once we started to think about the situation from Disney’s perspective.
Here’s something you may not realize each time you enter the Tower of Terror. You’re making a donation to CBS Studios when you do. They’re the rightful owners of The Twilight Zone IP, and so they’re the ones to whom Disney cuts a check each year. They agreed to this deal in the early 1990s when Disney-MGM Studios needed a savior, the proverbial e-ticket attraction. They did it because the CEO at the time, Michael Eisner, liked making deals with people he knew, which meant people in the movie industry.
Robert Iger is different. He has systematically boosted the Disney library whenever possible, paying billions of dollars to acquire some of the strongest IPs in the entirety of pop culture. He didn’t do that so that he could turn around and write checks to competitors in the marketplace. Disney isn’t at war with CBS Corporation the way that they are with Universal Studios and thereby NBCUniversal/Comcast. It’s not a petty act to want to stop those checks. It’s a sound business decision, at least in theory. The catch is that they have to break something beautiful to achieve that goal.
The problem everyone had with the rumor was the very feud with Universal Studios I’m referencing here. Disney’s enemy has an ironclad contract saying that they get dibs on Marvel characters at their Florida theme park. That matter’s eventually going to get settled in court or Disney will grudgingly write Universal a check to buy themselves out of a bad deal. Until then, they seemed locked out of a potential Marvel ride at Walt Disney World, at least one with characters already present at Universal Studios Florida.
What nobody had considered is that Guardians of the Galaxy doesn’t qualify. Since it was largely deemed a joke of a superhero team throughout its existence, Universal didn’t want them. That’s another reason why Disney execs struck gold when they locked in on Guardians as a potential movie project. They have an IP of soaring value that’s (arguably) free from legal issues. It already sold tons of merchandise prior to having a presence at Disney theme parks. You can connect the dots from here.
Every new beginning comes from some other beginning’s end
Image: Disney
The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror didn’t arrive at Disney California Adventure until a decade after the original version. Since its 2004 inception, however, the attraction has become one of two wildly popular rides there, Radiator Springs Racers being the other. While it’s a dozen years old by now, that’s not much time at all at a theme park where some of the original rides from Disneyland’s opening day are still operational. Sadly, it will never celebrate its 13th anniversary.
On July 23, 2016, Disney once again leveraged their platform at Comic Con to make a grand announcement about Guardians of the Galaxy. This one had nothing to do with a movie. Instead, Disney confirmed the seemingly impossible rumor we’d all heard. Guardians of the Galaxy – Mission: BREAKOUT! would replace The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror at Disneyland Resort. The current attraction will close permanently on January 3, 2017.
The explanation for this change is a financial one, and it exists on several levels. The critical one is that slotting the Guardians of the Galaxy in a theme park will enhance merchandising revenue for their newly improved IP. It’ll boost the awareness of the product among non-fans while enhancing the perception for everyone. Disney isn’t in the habit of building theme park attractions for flashes in the pan. They’re showing their confidence in the IP by shutting down one of the most popular attractions at Disney California Adventure to host it there.
Yes, there’s a downside to that move. Some Disney fans will always begrudge Guardians of the Galaxy for what it represents. It’s the death of Tower of Terror at Disneyland. A lot of people will never forget that. From the corporate perspective, however, it makes a ton of sense. In a single move, Disney can elevate one of their surging brands while simultaneously saving money on a payout to CBS.
Image: Disney
I feel you screaming at me about this, and I know what you’re going to say. Yes, Disney will suffer a cost in repurposing Tower of Terror into an outer space attraction. And yes, that amount might supersede any potential savings from the CBS payout over the next decade. Why doesn’t Disney care? They’re building something of their own at the expense of an IP someone else owns and licenses. Family comes first, and Guardians of the Galaxy is now an integral part of the Disney family.
What’s fascinating about this change is that Imagineers won’t duplicate it at Walt Disney World. Instead, a second strange rumor is floating around. It involves Epcot rather than The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror. If true, Guardians of the Galaxy would once again signal the end of a longstanding Disney attraction, in this case Ellen’s Energy Adventure. Such a move allows Disney to save the original version of Tower of Terror while revamping one of the most outdated (but lovable) parts of Epcot.
The shocking aspect of this rumor is the hallmark change it hints at becoming a reality. After decades of frustration with the lackluster treatment of the Future World portion of Epcot, park planners are contemplating something dramatic. Should they discard an educational attraction in favor of one that’s pure entertainment and IP-centric, they’d backhandedly acknowledge that Future World requires a reevaluation.
The sad, frustrating truth is that Future World does need that sort of infusion of new ideas. Otherwise, it will continue to falter as a byproduct of the 1970s perceptions of what the world would look like in the 21st century. Apparently, it’s going to look like Guardians of the Galaxy, as Ellen DeGeneres now has one foot out the door. That’s a strange way to treat the primary voice of the number one movie of the year, but Disney’s considering it.
Image: Disney
Should this rumor become a reality, Guardians of the Galaxy, an unheralded comic book, accidentally becomes one of the seminal intellectual properties in the history of The Walt Disney Company. Just think about the achievements it’s unlocking. At the box office, it’s bested the live action version of one of Disney’s most beloved animated movies, Sleeping Beauty. It’s ended the run of one of Disney’s greatest attractions ever, The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, at Disney California Adventure. And now it might become the first step toward discarding one of the basic premises of Walt Disney’s vision for the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow.
If Guardians of the Galaxy replaces Ellen’s Energy Adventure, the core concept of the front half of Epcot is no longer valid. Instead, they’ll have a Frozen IP sustaining foot traffic at the back of the park and a Marvel comic superhero group at the front. I suspect Walt Disney would roll in his grave at the thought of any of this, but that’s the reality we may soon live in.
The twilight of the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror is also the breaking of a new dawn for Guardians of the Galaxy, one which may signify the end of Epcot as we’ve always known it. Welcome to the world of tomorrow. It’s all about corporate branding.
