When will SSE be finished?

[wannab@dis]

I really don't see what the problem with understanding is here - Figment IS a successful character, whether you seem to understand that or not. Unfortunately, Disney destroyed the attraction that made him so, and had to rush him back in as a "quick-fix" when the attraction that replaced him ended up a flop.

Figment is not even a blip on the radar when talking about successful characters. Comparing Figment to Nemo, or any of the others, EVEN Stitch is ludicrous.

 

[plpeters70]

You will have to define what "successful" means to you, then. I have to know where you sit before I know where you stand.

In this case, I mean that Figment is a well recognized character by people that attend Disney parks. He isn't quite as well know as Pirates, Small World etc, but he is still a well known creation.

Unfortunately, like I said earlier, Disney all but destroyed the attraction that he was created for, and so his success has been comprimised lately. But even with an inferior attraction, he is still widely recognized - as his use on a lot of EPCOT merchandise will attest.

I would personally like to see Disney design more of the same for their parks -- there's no reason why they couldn't add even more original characters to EPCOT. Would you disagree?

 

[Timmay]

I thought it was airflow and power opposing forces of lift versus weight

Yeah, so did I...at first.

 

[plpeters70]

Figment is not even a blip on the radar when talking about successful characters. Comparing Figment to Nemo, or any of the others, EVEN Stitch is ludicrous.

You're still missing my point - I'm not talking about success in comparison to characters created for movies and cartoons. I agree with you - he is nowhere as well known as Mickey or even Stitch. And he doesn't sell as much crap either.

BUT, he is something unique to EPCOT - like Small World, Pirates, the Country Bears are unique to the Magic Kingdom parks. Or the Yeti is at Animal Kingdom. You can't find those things outside of the parks (w/ the exception of Pirates now). They are unique entities that draw guests to spend their vacations in Florida at WDW. I highly doubt the parks would be as successful if they offered nothing more than cartoon characters everywhere -- it takes original creations to make the Disney parks unique and special.

 

[Timmay]

In this case, I mean that Figment is a well recognized character by people that attend Disney parks. He isn't quite as well know as Pirates, Small World etc, but he is still a well known creation.

I do not believe Figment is a well recognized character, even inside the parks. And he is nowhere close to being in the same league as Pirates or Small World...it is not a matter of "quite". That issue isn't even a debate.

I would personally like to see Disney design more of the same for their parks -- there's no reason why they couldn't add even more original characters to EPCOT. Would you disagree?

The question is not "why couldn't they"...the question is simply "why". What would be the purpose of creating original charcters for the parks when there is already a group of characters well established with Disney as a whole??

Figment - or probably any other original park character - isn't going to pay the bills.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Just for the record... EPCOT Center means nothing, EPCOT means nothing and Epcot means nothing... they were nothing more than names of a park... a place of entertainment built solely to make money for a business. The transformation from EPCOT Center to Epcot was done to trend the park with the majority of guests' wants. I know it's philosophically enticing to try to have some deep meaning for a theme park, but it's a facade, a show, designed purely to make a buck. Please don't be upset... everyone has something they want to believe is real. But it's sometimes more advantageous to actually understand there is something behind the curtain... the majority of guests walking through the gate know that and accept it as entertainment.
.

I have to disagree...The way the ORIGINAL EPCOT Center was created,yes,it was another money-maker for a huge company,BUT it was truely created with the purpose of enlightenment and education.Di you honestly think the Disney Corporation enlisted all those cultural experts and scientists and visionaries just so they could make money through them?No,they were brought in to bring their unique talent and expertise to a theme park that would be much more than ANY entertainment venue could.

That's what EPCOT Center was...Now,we've lost that bright factual inspiring bold and dramatic look to the future and the world around us to cartoon fish,5 second thrills and bland attractions.And that's why so many people on here(including me) have a problem.If Disney would bring back this outlook back to the parks WITH the "fun" parts of the future,I guarantee that EPCOT would prosper again.

I don't write this blog but I'm sure of you would like to see it.It's one of the best and practically mimics our thoughts on EPCOT.http://epcot82.blogspot.com/

 

[plpeters70]

I do not believe Figment is a well recognized character, even inside the parks. And he is nowhere close to being in the same league as Pirates or Small World...it is not a matter of "quite". That issue isn't even a debate.

Well, I would disagree. He has become the defacto representative of EPCOT - they use him on quite a lot of EPCOT-specific merchandise. So, like I said, he may not be as well-know as Pirates, Small World or the others, but he isn't exactly unknown either. And Disney has never promoted EPCOT Center the same way they did the attractions at Disneyland when Walt was alive.

The question is not "why couldn't they"...the question is simply "why". What would be the purpose of creating original charcters for the parks when there is already a group of characters well established with Disney as a whole??

How about to grow the brand? And like I said - building almost nothing but original attractions seemed to have worked fine for almost 40 years - it's only within the last decade that the focus has been on already existing properties.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Isnt every project just a watered down series of compromises on the original idea?

Epcot needs new attractions especially in World Showcase, minor changes to the golf ball noticeable to only fan boys isnt going to change that. The idea of information and education may be a noble one but in this age of high speed information a totally impractical option.

Perhaps a How it works or MythBusters type pavilion would bridge the gap.

But a coaster and a wet ride wouldnt go a miss, oh and a few more bars.

 

[Timmay]

If Disney would bring back this outlook back to the parks WITH the "fun" parts of the future,I guarantee that EPCOT would prosper again.

Um...:lookaroun Epcot is prospering now.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

How about to grow the brand? And like I said - building almost nothing but original attractions seemed to have worked fine for almost 40 years - it's only within the last decade that the focus has been on already existing properties.

Im sure the marketing people would argue that using film characters is growing the brand and serving the shareholders while meeting customer expectations.

 

[plpeters70]

That's what EPCOT Center was...Now,we've lost that bright factual inspiring bold and dramatic look to the future and the world around us to cartoon fish,5 second thrills and bland attractions.And that's why so many people on here(including me) have a problem.

Totally agree - but here's the rub: The cartoon crap actually does sell.

Disney has managed to tap into the same market that loves to buy those horrible Disney sequels. The theme parks have become nothing but places to take the kids - it's not about entertaining the whole family anymore, it's about making sure little "Susy" gets to shake hands with Minnie, and "Timmy" gets to meet Buzz Lightyear. So, Disney doesn't have to bother making original experiences or using their product to educate and enlighten - all they have to do is slap some cartoon characters on a ride and call it a day. The masses will eat it up.

It just saddens people like us who enjoyed Disney for something else. Even as a kid, I really didn't care all that much about Mickey. It was attractions like Pirates, Horizons and Imagination that were exciting - and it was what I kept coming back for, even as an adult. Sadly, that era seems to be fading away, and we are being left with something no where near as good.

But hey, if it keeps the kids happy...

 

[plpeters70]

Im sure the marketing people would argue that using film characters is growing the brand and serving the shareholders while meeting customer expectations.

I'm sure they would, but I'm not talking about the Disney brand as a whole - I mean the individual brands of EPCOT, Animal Kingdom, etc.

Of course, that's part of the problem - they parks are no longer seen as individual brands. They sell the place as some generic "Disney Parks", so they don't see a need to grow the EPCOT-brand or the "Animal Kingdom"-brand -- they just sell WDW.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Maybe semantics, but if we're talking about characters created originally for the parks, I don't think Pirates and Small World qualify in the same way Figment does. Pirates and Small World are concepts populated with no-names. Until the Pirates movie franchise started, there were no recognizable characters tied to the ride, other than "hairy leg guy," "guy with the key," etc. Small World is a collection of nameless mannequins.

Outside of Figment and Dreamfinder, are there any other examples of characters (not concepts) created originally for the parks? I guess you could list Master Gracey, although I think his identity has grown more out of the lore surrounding HM than the content of the ride itself. The Yeti is a new take on an old legend, so that seems like a stretch to me.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Well, I would disagree. He has become the defacto representative of EPCOT - they use him on quite a lot of EPCOT-specific merchandise. So, like I said, he may not be as well-know as Pirates, Small World or the others, but he isn't exactly unknown either. And Disney has never promoted EPCOT Center the same way they did the attractions at Disneyland when Walt was alive.

I agree,Figment is one of the most popular characters in EPCOT.Isn't he the mascot?

Um...:lookaroun Epcot is prospering now.

Totally agree - but here's the rub: The cartoon crap actually does sell.

Disney has managed to tap into the same market that loves to buy those horrible Disney sequels. The theme parks have become nothing but places to take the kids - it's not about entertaining the whole family anymore, it's about making sure little "Susy" gets to shake hands with Minnie, and "Timmy" gets to meet Buzz Lightyear. So, Disney doesn't have to bother making original experiences or using their product to educate and enlighten - all they have to do is slap some cartoon characters on a ride and call it a day. The masses will eat it up.

It just saddens people like us who enjoyed Disney for something else. Even as a kid, I really didn't care all that much about Mickey. It was attractions like Pirates, Horizons and Imagination that were exciting - and it was what I kept coming back for, even as an adult. Sadly, that era seems to be fading away, and we are being left with something no where near as good.

But hey, if it keeps the kids happy...

So why not have both,and placate BOTH parties?I know several adults(not my parents,thank God.) that like Epcot less now becasue of all the the kiddie attractions.If they were to say,keep Turtle Talk in the back of The Living Seas where it is but still have all of the futuristic Sea Base Alpha/Hydrolators/Sea Cabs and Preshow,both parties would be fine.The same for Test Track.Why not utilize that space inside the building for a futuristic look at transportation.

If both concepts were used we would have a perfect park.It's possible too.

 

[plpeters70]

So why not have both,and placate BOTH parties?I know several adults(not my parents,thank God.) that like Epcot less now becasue of all the the kiddie attractions.

That's what I would like to see, but I'm pretty sure the pendulum will swing in favor of the character stuff for quite some time. It's just making them too much money, and they just don't care about anything else anymore.

I predict we'll see a few unique rides over the next few years, but most of it will be tied to some outside brand that they can market the heck out of.

 

[Timmay]

The theme parks have become nothing but places to take the kids - it's not about entertaining the whole family anymore, it's about making sure little "Susy" gets to shake hands with Minnie, and "Timmy" gets to meet Buzz Lightyear. So, Disney doesn't have to bother making original experiences

You've stopped making sense...there is plenty of entertainment for the whole family. Now you are just making stuff up. This discussion has run its course.:snore:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

That's what I would like to see, but I'm pretty sure the pendulum will swing in favor of the character stuff for quite some time. It's just making them too much money, and they just don't care about anything else anymore.

I predict we'll see a few unique rides over the next few years, but most of it will be tied to some outside brand that they can market the heck out of.

I think it could happen too...After all,look at the current direction of the park:The Wand is down,the SSE refurb is decent,and there are rumors of a really good Imagination refurb...Perhaps this is the "Spark of Inspiration" the park needs.

 

[plpeters70]

You've stopped making sense...there is plenty of entertainment for the whole family. Now you are just making stuff up.

Give the Marketeers 10 years or so...

But even now, most of the new stuff isn't for all members of the family, they are for specific age groups. We have thrills for the teens, and cartoons for the kiddies, and a few leftover movies that we haven't removed yet that grandma can enjoy. But hey, they can all split-up and enjoy everything seperately. Isn't that what Disney parks are all about??

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

I'm sure they would, but I'm not talking about the Disney brand as a whole - I mean the individual brands of EPCOT, Animal Kingdom, etc.

Of course, that's part of the problem - they parks are no longer seen as individual brands. They sell the place as some generic "Disney Parks", so they don't see a need to grow the EPCOT-brand or the "Animal Kingdom"-brand -- they just sell WDW.

Im more concerned that the merchandise available is generic and can be purchased on any market here in the UK. You can use Pixar or Disney characters but in a way that creates an association with the park. I mean thats not new but it does involve a little more thought than the current Walmartification of all stores.

Lets be honest WDW is seen as a unified tourist destination, and heres a shocker for you to many Brits theres no differentiation between Universal and Disney other than Disney is expensive and for kids Universal is a thrill park for teens and grown ups. And that constitutes your largest foreign visitor group.

 

[coasterphil]

Every park at WDW was intended to have its own strong, unique brand. Unfortunately instead of working those brands into the next Magic Kingdom they went the other way and injected the Magic Kingdom into them for the quicker/easier/cheaper attendence boost.