Bob Chapek Confirms Disney Will Overhaul Epcot

[lazyboy97o]

you seriously don't want IP based attractions?

I would be perfectly fine without IP attractions. I'm not afraid of new experiences. The IP focus of so many arguments is just stupid. Themed entertainment is a storytelling medium and what is most important is a good story. Despite how much some like to prattle on otherwise, a good story has an internal consistency. The story is set at the Land level and a bunch of unrelated attractions is just an amusement park.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

It should be both/and not either/or.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So instead of a Star Wars Land, you'd prefer a original and fresh ride?

I prefer compelling experiences.

 

[HauntedPirate]

You're doing it again.

The rest of your post had put forth some coherent points, but it was buried by first name-calling people who disagreed with you.

And after calling you out on that, you double down by calling me a pixie duster. Again, characterizing anyone who disagrees with you as self-deluded.

Any valid points you may make are lost with ad hominem attacks. And just because a lot of other jack mules throw around the same term doesn't make it right.

Except... nowhere did I put forth any ad hominem attacks in my original post, nor did I direct my comment about "Disney-branded MAGICAL!!! glasses" at anyone specific. It was meant as an indictment on TDO and Disney in general, as I frequently use "MAGICAL!!!" towards TDO and Disney in general due to the way they handle everything with "MAGICAL!!!" PR/marketing fluff, with all the substance of soap bubbles (and usually just as stinging to the eyes), and they would like everyone to view what they do thru said glasses.

 

[WDW1974]

OK, I admit I haven't read this thread. Haven't read much here the past few months ... but what is the consensus (I know bad question here) on this? I ask because of two things I know factually to be true:

1.) Work on EPCOT has been on-again, off-again so many times it would make your head spin and;
2.) Chappie lies.

So what, if anything, of substance am I missing?

 

[WDW1974]

I prefer compelling experiences.

Clearly you haven't experienced the wonder, the incredible, the awe-inspiring voyage to Arrendelle that is Frozen: Just a Retelling of the Movie In a Largely Empty Showbuilding, but Elsa Belts Out Let It Go, So All The Rubes Are Happy.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Clearly you haven't experienced the wonder, the incredible, the awe-inspiring voyage to Arrendelle that is Frozen: Just a Retelling of the Movie In a Largely Empty Showbuilding, but Elsa Belts Out Let It Go, So All The Rubes Are Happy.

I seem to be only person in the world not impressed by empty rooms and lousy animatronics.

 

[WDW1974]

I seem to be only person in the world not impressed by empty rooms and lousy animatronics.

Have you thought about seeing someone professionally for this problem?

 

[Kman101]

But they're not "lousy animatronics". Dang it stop making me defend this ride! LOL

And no, there's nothing of substance really. Epcot seems to have a lot of proposals, but they once again appear to be in no rush to do anything.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But they're not "lousy animatronics". Dang it stop making me defend this ride! LOL

They are lousy. They are off model stick figures with a bad face lift due to an 18 year old gimmick. Their arms flail about like marionettes being pulled by wires.

Well i hate to break it to you, but you're not gonna get a compelling experience with "The Ride of The Most Boring Subject Ever But It's Interesting Because It Relates To What The Goal of Epcot Is..THE RIDE!!!" It boggles my mind that someone would take a ride with zero fun and thrill factor rather than stepping into a world you've dreamed of since it's beginning

It seems your problem is that you lack the imagination to conceive of anything beyond what you already know. Not yet being created is in no way synonymous with "zero fun."

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's not that i lack imagination. Eric Idle scanned my brain and said i have a lot of imagination. And then there were all these figments and- im getting off topic. The thing is when i go to Disney, im not looking to go to find the most non IP based rides. Im gonna be on Tower of Terror, Rock 'n' Rollercoaster starring Aerosmith, Splash Mountain, Star Tours etc. you name it. If you don't like IP based rides you can always go to Gatorland and watch the gators sleep. Although you might hate that too because the Crocodile Hunters dead corpse might be sponsering Gatorland and that's based on an IP

Your reading comprehension sure is poor. The majority of Disney's themed entertainment work is not IP attractions, so it seems you are the one going to the wrong place.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Please tell me you've been living under a rock and you're just now learning about the world around you. Literally everything around the Disney Parks is IP based attractions. And unless you're talking about something other than attractions then you, my friend, are in the wrong place

That is only true if you have a made up definition of IP that stretches so far into meaninglessness as to include genre.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I dont know why Disney can't just build more STEM-based thrill rides like Test Track and Sum of All Thrills. Guests seem to like them and they at least pay some lip service to EPCOT Center's themes of education and new technology. It would give Future World more of a creative difference over the other parks than turning Spaceship Earth into Wreck-It-Ralph's Ball of Fun!.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

OK, I admit I haven't read this thread.

Not to indulge too much into self promotion, but you might like this post.

 

[jt04]

I dont know why Disney can't just build more STEM-based thrill rides like Test Track and Sum of All Thrills. Guests seem to like them and they at least pay some lip service to EPCOT Center's themes of education and new technology. It would give Future World more of a creative difference over the other parks than turning Spaceship Earth into Wreck-It-Ralph's Ball of Fun!.

How about turning Future World into a Zootopian city?

That would check all the boxes for fans and management.

And now I will take a step back and watch that compute.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

So why not develop new IP specifically for the park and the environments they will habitat?

Or do we continue to have corporate synergy rammed down our throats?

Guess which one management chose. Clue. Not the first one.

It's completely inconsistent to argue that a "new IP" would be somehow pure and good while one that gets a movie first must be awful.

Frozen is a new, original IP.

Corporate synergy is the name of the game. This is not art for art's sake. It's not a museum. It's a corporation. If you don't make money, then you don't get to make art.

Why reinvent the teddy bear – what was that bland thing called? - when you have a Winnie the Pooh?

 

[Tony the Tigger]

No, it is deemed awful due to an unsuitable IP being shoehorned in where it doesn't belong.

No one of sane mind would say Maelstrom was not dated. Many would argue it should have gotten the planned refresh and update instead of Frozenstrom. That's the issue.

So far the only reason I've seen presented for it being "unsuitable" is because they made up the name of a town in Norway instead of just saying it took place in Norway.

I'd have to try really hard to get upset over that.

 

[Luxe]

This is not art for art's sake. It's not a museum. It's a corporation. If you don't make money, then you don't get to make art.

Ah, there it is. The classic "Disney is a business" argument. We all know how that one goes...

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Why reinvent the teddy bear – what was that bland thing called? - when you have a Winnie the Pooh?

Because when you commit and create an engaging character and/or attraction (Duffy, who I assume you were referencing, was neither) you open the door to new, exciting, and exclusive reasons to visit your worldwide destination.

Why bother building Pirates of the Caribbean when they could have just built a ride based off of Treasure Island, Disney's already successful film? Because, simply, how great is Pirates of the Caribbean? Make something that will blow people away and you don't need synergy. THAT was the name of the game for the better part of the first 40 years of Disney Parks, and it worked. Who ever gets off of Big Thunder and thinks "that was okay, but it would have been better if there was a familiar intellectual property involved" -- approximately no one? And what's more, I can't think of anyone who ever complained of their not being enough film IP in the Magic Kingdom in all the years that it was constrained pretty much exclusively to Fantasyland.

You can have a mix of familiar and new properties. That's a totally great, proven recipe. Lately they've not been building a mix. At least not in Florida.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Have you thought about seeing someone professionally for this problem?

I hear the firm of Iger and Chapek is excellent with this sort of problem, but their rates are extremely high.