For the short answer, I offer this shaded box:
I have to say Disney's Hollywood Studios, without hesitation.
That park was intended to offer a look into how movies are made, and even witness actual projects, both live-action and animated, created right before your eyes.
Yet now the soundstages and backlot are either closed, repurposed, or torn down. The animation studio is closed and the tour is like visiting a brightly colored funeral. Death to animation, but look at the pretty posters! The backlot tour has almost no backlot left to tour, and one of the highlights is seeing giant stacks of tires for the stunt show cars. Yawn.
Yet, to be fair, that stunt show, and the much hated American Idol are about the only newer attractions brought to DHS that actually try to teach you something about how movies/television shows are made and give that "behind the scenes" glimpse.
The rumor Disney is considering dropping the word "Studios" from the name of the park entirely is pretty damning proof there's a big paradigm shift already in progress.
For the LONG answer, I offer the rest. Proceed at your own risk. :snore:
Now, I realize EPCOT is the new rallying point around here, which explains to me why it seems like such a popular answer. It seems like every scrap of information posted around here gets bent and twisted into fueling the conspiracy theory that every change that has occurred at EPCOT since 1982 (
or pick whatever year was the last time YOU liked EPCOT) is a sign personifying the growing creative bankruptcy of the entire Disney corporation.
But as far as the original question goes, I just don't see nearly as large a shift in "intent or message" at EPCOT as I do at DHS. Let me tell you why.
Let's start with the easy part: World Showcase
World Showcase stands virtually unchanged since the day EPCOT opened. We've had two new countries added, both are well executed, offer something unique to World Showcase, and are pretty popular. China and Canada have new films, but they have the same message as before: "Come visit." And no, I really don't see how adding the Three Caballeros to Mexico's boat ride changes the intent or message of the ride. It's still a goofy little trip through Mexican Small World. Donald Duck neither destroys nor improves that fact.
Okay, so what about Future World?
First off, I think WAY too much emphasis is put on the word FUTURE, as it is usually used in a pejorative way to mean the current version isn't as forward thinking as it was "in the good old days."
Of course, in the "good old days" pretty much EVERY Future World pavilion dealt with the future by devoting most of its space to looking back
into the past, almost completely dodging having to make too many futuristic prognostications. Which is actually a well used bait-and-switch tactic Disney has been using forever. Because it works! Here's another example: No one ever complains how Carousel of Progress doesn't fit into Tomorrowland's theme, in spite of it basically covering only the 20th century's progress involving
kitchen appliances, while the attractions that feature space travel, aliens, and fantastically advanced technology are accused of "not fitting in" with Tomorrowland's "carefully crafted" theme just because they give starring roles to characters from Disney films.
Spaceship Earth, Living Seas, The Land, World of Motion, Horizons, and Universe of Energy are all very BACKWARD-looking pavilions, that spend much of their running time showing not where we're going at all, but where we've already been. And the two I left out, Imagination and Wonders of Life, pretty much avoided any real "future" elements right from the start.
But have they changed? At the core, the real heart, the spirit, meaning, or intent?
Let's start with Spaceship Earth. If anything, I'd say the most recent changes make it even more about the future than ever before, and pretty much everything in the new post show is not only technologically advanced, it's kinda cool, too.
Living Seas? I don't agree that adding characters from Finding Nemo makes that pavilion any less about the sea than before. The trick to keeping any pavilion relevant is to use something that makes the intended audience comfortable, and give them something they can relate to, and then offer the opportunity to go beyond that. The Nemo overlay gets a whole lot more people into the pavilion than ever before, and that's key. No matter how much "better" the pre-Nemo version was, once the SeaCabs and the film closed down, there really wasn't a whole lot left to do or see, and the lack of people visiting proved that. The pavilion has become an extended waiting area for people waiting to get a table at the Coral Reef. Now, the Living Seas seems like it's one of the busier pavilions whenever I visit.
The Land? I have to say, The Land has never seemed particularly involved in the future, beyond showing some modern growing and farming techniques. Adding Soarin' (and removing Food Rocks) is probably the biggest change that pavilion has seen. Did that change its message or intent? To me, no. I think the heart of The Land is still the boat ride, and between it and the greenhouse tour, guests are still getting a pretty solid look at food, farming, and the environment. Simultaneously losing Food Rocks and gaining Soarin' is just a big, big bonus.
Imagination? I really don't have anything too kind to say about this pavilion, other than the leap frog fountains are super cool when they're working. But this pavilion was never particularly futuristic, it's also not particularly good either.
Test Track? It think TT is by far more futuristic than World of Motion. Instead of gliding through a nostalgic cutie-pie tableaux looking back into the past while traveling in 1960s omnimover technology Test Track uses a cutting edge ride system (perhaps TOO cutting edge, honestly) to take you through an attraction that is thrilling and educational at the same time. Entertain and educate? Seems fairly EPCOT-ish to me.
Mission: Space? Well, again, the ride system is cutting edge (again, perhaps TOO cutting edge) and seems in all respects themed very much in the future. And I think adding a tamer version has allowed a lot more people to ride it, which is also a good thing, I think. And yes, I know Mission: Space isn't Horizons, and it never will be, and I understand that deep down that is why many people hate M:S. In a perfect world, I'd rather have them both.
Universe of Energy? Needs a rehab. Badly. My only question is, will it be another rehab that only changes around the film elements, or will they boldly rip out the dinosaurs and create something entirely new? Still, in it's current state you can't really say that it has betrayed its original intent or message when 75% of the ride is pretty much the same as it was originally, and the 25% Ellen that got added almost 15 years ago (man, has it been that long?) is as forward looking as it could be for being almost 15 years old.
Actually, what concerns me most is how through all 27 years and two versions of the Energy pavilion our needs, problems, and our progress towards reaching a solution hasn't changed much at all. The Energy pavilion doesn't need a rehab nearly as much as our energy priorities do...
There's ONE pavilion with characters. ONE! And it is by far an immense improvement over its predecessor. Living Seas was a bore fest, and the new one does a great job of giving information while still being fun.
