Guardians of the Galaxy Taking Over ToT

I could only tell it was a hotel from the outside cuz the sign says "hotel." That is a weird building.

 

What I've always found strange is how all the TOT's (even Tokyo's, which doesn't follow the hotel conceit) have that strange top-heavy design with the overhangs on either end at the top. It always seemed to me that if they wanted to make it look more like a real hotel (or just a real building), they could have "filled in" the spaces between the overhangs and the ground. It wouldn't have enlarged the footprint - you'd just have hollow space between the outer "wall" below the now-overhangs and the real outer wall, but it would make them look more like a real building.

Maybe the odd shape is supposed to add to the sense of foreboding or "something's not right here?" It just always seemed strange to me. Even stranger is that it's least prominent in the original, and more so in subsequent versions.

 

I agree that the wings at the tops of the various towers are an odd architectural choice. They contain the lift equipment, so they're kind of necessary (also why DCA's 3 shafts aren't evenly spaced across the façade), but there's no reason that they couldn't build the façade all the way to the ground to hide them better. Alternatively, I think they could also theoretically turn the equipment 90 degrees so they stick out behind the elevators instead of to the side; if they did this and built all the way to the ground, I think it would help make it look a little more realistic, rather than the building conveniently being the exact depth of the elevator shaft

The WDW tower seems to have the shafts closer to the center of the structure (due to the 4 load shafts in the rear of the building), so the wings aren't as pronounced. When they expanded to 3 drop shafts for the other towers, that pushed them out toward the sides, with the equipment sticking out beyond that. But there doesn't seem to be any logical reason why they didn't extend the façade to hide them better, other than some relatively minor cost savings

And TDS's version actually keeps the hotel concept, but that's about the only similarity. Instead of the Twilight Zone, the premise is built around a possessed idol that the hotel's owner looted on an foreign expedition; instead of 1930's Hollywood, it's turn-of-the-century New York, and the building isn't visibly damaged

 

Interesting. I didn't realize Tokyo's was a hotel since I knew the story was so different. And it makes sense that the 3 shaft vs 4 shaft designs explain the larger overhangs in DCA and TDS.

I do think extending a false facade to either side would have been a good choice. Not doing so might actually work better with the Guardians thing than as a supposed hotel. Still interested in seeing the finished product.

 

I'm just curious as to how Guarians relates to Walt's California. Same with Monster Inc. Mike & Skully. The Cars theme is already a stretch but Guardians and Skully no way.

Oh, I know. Marvel and Monsters Inc. are money making properties and brands that most people identify with.

 

Monsters can be justified as a movie, and therefore "fits" in Hollywood. Guardians could too, I guess (since TOT is in Hollywood), though I think it's supposed to be the first step in an expanded Marvel area, isn't it? And I guess Marvel will be a subsection of Hollywood (devoted to Marvel movies), so then it would actually make sense.

 

I'm sure you are correct in that is Disney's justifications. But how weak and embarrassing this is.

California Adventure changed its theme about 5 years ago to bring us a place where Walt Disney himself "walked and partied" . There was no Marvel or Mike & Skully. Thematically this be some bunk.

 

Agreed

 

Agreed

 

I think that was only supposed to be Buena Vista Street. Walt never lived in NoCal or, obviously, in Cars Land.

 

A side by side view via the Mattercam.

 

That side-by-side comparison shows that the new decorations definitely stick up above the top of the old structure. Disney had publicized that the building was 199' tall to avoid needed a flashing red light on top, so does this mean that they'll be adding a light to the 'new' design? Or were they lying about the old height, and it's still below FAA limits even with the new add-ons?

The only structures in Disney parks to date that have required FAA beacons were the wand on SSE in Epcot and the Maliboomer in DCA (along with the non-Disney Dolphin hotel in WDW), both of which have been removed. It would be a shame to have to add another flashing light when it could have easily been avoided

 

I superimposed them just to prove myself wrong. Sure enough.