PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Ah. The lack of a middle class as Rob pointed out.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Puerto Rico in talks to host permanent pavilion in Epcot by 2017
- Thread starter Pick145
- Start date
Ah. The lack of a middle class as Rob pointed out.
Suspirian
Well-Known Member
just pulling your leg
but to be honest i dint really care for equitorial Africa either. It just seems strange to have a grouping of countries from Africa, but give another African country it's own pavillion. But as far as those go, I'd like to see Botswana or Ghana
mm121
Well-Known Member
i think the primary issue was money, as most african countries aren't exactly flush on cash, doing it as a group would be less of a burden on each one, and logically there may be some cultural overlap of countries that are neighbors.
good question, i dont know if its just that disney hasn't tried that hard, or if they aren't willing. I know at one point there were talks with brazil.
as i proposed elsewhere now that frozen is taking over norway (i'm assuming disney's paying for that)
it would seem that with a new pavillion disney could pay for the ride/attraction and a good portion of the construction for the rest of the pavillion, and then make the country itself fiscally responsible for things such as entertainment and the restaurant, store, and tourism aspects
this would bring the host country funds required down alot.
I think the biggest issue is convincing a country they will benefit in some way financially, as no country is just going to do it "for the fun of it" they want to use tourism dollars as wisely as possible.
The only way to prove actual benefit would be to have like adventures by disney sell vacations on site, though I doubt many people go to epcot and then wake up the next day and are like I think i wanna fly to Australia tomorrow.
Spike-in-Berlin
Well-Known Member
And what kind of attraction would a Puerto Rico Pavilion offer? Or would it be like Italy, Germany, Japan, Morocco and the UK, shops and eateries but nothing really to do?
We had 26! years of stalemate without a nation added to the roster or a new attraction built in an existing nation. WS ist the most stagnating area in WDW,.
We had 26! years of stalemate without a nation added to the roster or a new attraction built in an existing nation. WS ist the most stagnating area in WDW,.
Spike-in-Berlin
Well-Known Member
As there is an enormous cultural divide between Morocco as an Arabian country and the countries of Black Africa it actually makes sense to plan a Pavilion for several contries from Equatorial Africa, especially concerning the funding. I don't think that any country south of the Sahara, with the exception of the Republic of South Africa could guarantee the funding of an Pavilion over a substantial amout of time alone.
TeriofTerror
Well-Known Member
Sponsorships:
I still contend that theme park guests are now the sponsors. Here's the math:
A ticket to Epcot in 1982 was $15. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $36.97 in 2014. Subtract that from the actual admission price of $94 and you get $57.03. Multiply by 20,000 Epcot guests per day to arrive at $1,140,600, then times 365 days per year = $416,319,000 annually above and beyond what ticket prices would be if the cost increases kept pace with inflation. I don't think that's an insubstantial sponsorship, and I don't think guests are out of line for wanting a little more of a return on their investment.
I still contend that theme park guests are now the sponsors. Here's the math:
A ticket to Epcot in 1982 was $15. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $36.97 in 2014. Subtract that from the actual admission price of $94 and you get $57.03. Multiply by 20,000 Epcot guests per day to arrive at $1,140,600, then times 365 days per year = $416,319,000 annually above and beyond what ticket prices would be if the cost increases kept pace with inflation. I don't think that's an insubstantial sponsorship, and I don't think guests are out of line for wanting a little more of a return on their investment.
JERiv
Active Member
A few thoughts...
1) PR will not become a state until the point where it's an absolute necessity. Maybe when the economy gets so horrendously bad that the US has no choice but to step in to take control of the situation. Bottom line, the US can't really strip US citizenship from 3.6 million Americans in PR. And abandoning 3.6 million citizens isn't really an option.
2) However, the US Congress will never actually allow PR to become a "real" state. Because:
3) The PR economy is horrendous right now. So there will not be any money to support a pavilion. Therefore the pavilion will never happen unless Disney pays for it. Again, does anyone see that happening? ... Yeah, thought so. This is a temporary pavilion that will go away after a while. Maybe to come back next year due to popularity, maybe not.
4) PR would be awesome (IMO), but that's just because I'm biased as I'm from PR.
5) I don't really see a "grouping" of countries being put in the pavilion. Especially from Africa when we have DAK already, where they already shine quite well.
6) Brazil does makes sense, but only if Disney doesn't have plans to build a park somewhere in South America in the future. Which based on how much they've been expanding is a very likely scenario.
7) I live in TX. TX will be secede when NEVER. Please. That's as likely as PR becoming a state.
8) One article in a very small newspaper/tabloid in a small island doesn't really mean much of anything, sadly. You'd get more solid rumors from Disney bus drivers.
1) PR will not become a state until the point where it's an absolute necessity. Maybe when the economy gets so horrendously bad that the US has no choice but to step in to take control of the situation. Bottom line, the US can't really strip US citizenship from 3.6 million Americans in PR. And abandoning 3.6 million citizens isn't really an option.
2) However, the US Congress will never actually allow PR to become a "real" state. Because:
#1 - The Representatives in the House get allocated based on population. Imagine Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Utah, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, and North Dakota (20 states, all states with a lower population count) voting to suddenly have LESS clout and power in the House than a island with a horrible economy in the middle of the Caribbean full of folks that every once in a while votes to keep Spanish as their main language and insist on having separate participation in the Olympics.
#2 - Senators won't allow to 2 more Senators to come in and therefore also dilute their power... unless maybe if they're guaranteed the new guys will support their respective party, which the other party won't ever accept.
#3 - Electoral College. Same as #1, PR would have more clout than those states in electing a US President. Do you see those states (or any others for that matter) really allowing that??? Yeah...
So does anyone think there's any chance Congress will ever allow PR to become a state? Personally, I think there's a higher chance of both parties suddenly agreeing on every issue we currently face and solving all of them within a one month timeframe all while singing kumbaya and embracing North Korea as a strategic partner in the fight against evil martian alien invaders. #2 - Senators won't allow to 2 more Senators to come in and therefore also dilute their power... unless maybe if they're guaranteed the new guys will support their respective party, which the other party won't ever accept.
#3 - Electoral College. Same as #1, PR would have more clout than those states in electing a US President. Do you see those states (or any others for that matter) really allowing that??? Yeah...
3) The PR economy is horrendous right now. So there will not be any money to support a pavilion. Therefore the pavilion will never happen unless Disney pays for it. Again, does anyone see that happening? ... Yeah, thought so.
This is a temporary pavilion that will go away after a while. Maybe to come back next year due to popularity, maybe not.4) PR would be awesome (IMO), but that's just because I'm biased as I'm from PR.
5) I don't really see a "grouping" of countries being put in the pavilion. Especially from Africa when we have DAK already, where they already shine quite well.
6) Brazil does makes sense, but only if Disney doesn't have plans to build a park somewhere in South America in the future. Which based on how much they've been expanding is a very likely scenario.
7) I live in TX. TX will be secede when NEVER. Please. That's as likely as PR becoming a state.
8) One article in a very small newspaper/tabloid in a small island doesn't really mean much of anything, sadly. You'd get more solid rumors from Disney bus drivers.
Last edited:
PirateFrank
Well-Known Member
This is crazy. PR is not a country....this would be like converting the UK pavilion to the falklands pavilion. Doesn't make any sense. Plus -- we already have a PR pavilion. Come to NYC - It's called the bronx. No need to build another....
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Except that Disney did built World Showcase pavilions without sponsorship.
Most of the World Showcase pavilions do not have government sponsorship. And in an age of increasing austerity, who is going to kill heir political career to fund some theme park rides.
That's why the NPP governments have consistenly undone everything that can give PR an economic advantage.
Then again, they approved Law 20/22, which would immediately be struck if Puerto Rico were to become a state.
Anyway, the last studies showed that PR can't actually afford statehood. The economy would have to improve first, at which point, what would be the benefit to statehood? You mainlanders get presidential vote AND representation... what good has that done for you?
4) PR would be awesome (IMO), but that's just because I'm biased as I'm from PR.
Orlando ya es un municipio... 79 o 80.
Me gusta. I could enjoy this. Although with how South American economies are, I'd see a Chile or Colombia pavilion first (since they're they one who can most likely afford it), or maybe Argentina (since they love to waste money)
Australia, maybe.
Dubai is part of the UAE. So it's not a real country. It's an emirate - just like Abu Dhabi and Sharjah.
Spain is broke.
Switzerland, maybe. But there's already so much Europe.
India, could be interesting. Definitely something lacking representation. But then again, there are Indian CM's working at Asia in DAK. So there's the same argument people bring against Africa.
Russia. Not gonna happen for quite some time. They either have the money or willingness to print it, but there's not much good will in the US towards Russia right now. Something about Crimea, rampant crony corruption, and institutionalized homophobia.
Well, they are sister islands. PR y Cuba, de un pájaro, las dos alas.
Suspirian
Well-Known Member
That makes sense. While I'm not so sure about Botswana, Ghana's economy seems to be doing pretty well, so they may be able to come up with funding. South Africa would be a good choice and I'm sure they'd be able the fund the pavilion. Honestly I'd much rather they add attractions to some of the existing pavilions first before they move along with any new pavilion plan.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
This.
RayTheFirefly
Well-Known Member
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Again, people keep saying that, but is there some sort of rule that Epcot pavilions have to be independent countries? Why does it matter?
RayTheFirefly
Well-Known Member
I'd LOVE a Chile pavilion (I'm biased as I'm Chilean)! And their tourism industry is booming right now, so it's actually not that crazy of an idea for there to be one. And, as you said, they are probably one of the most equipped to cough up the dough. Someone find me Sra. Michelle Bachelet's phone number.