Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
It was a joke...can’t have anything like that on insider rumors, eh?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
EPCOT Brazil (and maybe others) Pavilion Coming to Epcot [not about Brazilian people nor a country wish list]
- Thread starter MisterPenguin
- Start date
WEDway Inc & Company LLC
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, this makes more sense in Animal Kingdom. However, I totally see where you're coming from.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Aesthetic isn't theme. Why would it make more sense in AK? AK is about animals and human's relationship to animals. To the areas there now that represent continents (not countries) the human populated areas are all villages /areas that are close to nature. An African village close to a Safari. Asian villages near the jungles. No specific country is represented in AK.
Epcot, on the other hand, is representative of human culture. India, especially with the Taj Mahal is nationality and human culture focused - not a fit for AK but perfect for Epcot. Besides, it's already represented in Soarin', so it makes perfect sense for it to be in Epcot.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
Certainly does make sense, as did Brazil.
The fact Brazil has fallen through and they haven't managed to build a new pavilion in 32 years strongly suggests whatever model Disney has for judging whether it makes sense to build new pavilions is not conducive to building any new pavilions.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
That’s kinda been my point for about 15 years...
AMMARIGHT, @marni1971, @Rteetz ?
I have been “consistent” in this view and they’ve (the Walt disney company) done nothing to prove me wrong.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
Ins't Morocco sponsored by the country? (And I seem to recall Noway was a partnership with the government and SAS)
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Norway was a “consortium of Scandinavian business” that collapsed before the pavilion opened...bought 33 years ago.
That probably was the canary in the coal mine for future pavilions right there...there’s no advantage/money in being a sponsor.
And my other tired refrain: the internet killed Epcot
Yes, Morocco is sponsored by the country's government. I was sorta looking toward future pavilions where that's probably never going to happen again.
And as mentioned, the governmental interest in a Scandinavian pavilion fell through (as well as Canada's interest).
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Morocco is a unique circumstance...don’t think that’s the “formula”
Not quite. Elements of the pavilion were sponsored.
capsshield
Active Member
Wow, they need to change their strategy after 32 years of failures and stagnation. They need to worry about building high quality must see attractions. Then sponsorship will have companies standing in line to buy it. It almost feels as if they have the cart before the horse. Does world showcase even have an attraction that is worth waiting more than a half hour to ride.
After all this time Epcot should be a park that guests want to spend two or three days in at a time. Each pavilion should have a show, an attraction, a walk through, Shopping, and dining. Guests should want to spend 1-3 hours in each pavilion.
If we are not eating, or drinking in one of the restaurants within Germany, Italy, Morocco and UK then it takes a half hour at most to see those countries. The longer you are in the park the more likely it is that you will relax and eat.
I just don't understand the logic behind this parks growth, adding IP's or not.
It's like watching a fly trying to get out of a window that's closed while the one next to it is wide open.
We probably have a better chance of seeing pavilions expanded than we do of new countries being added. However knowing how they like to tear down perfectly fine attractions I suspect that 2 out of 3 new additions will result in the loss of an old favorite somewhere.
After all this time Epcot should be a park that guests want to spend two or three days in at a time. Each pavilion should have a show, an attraction, a walk through, Shopping, and dining. Guests should want to spend 1-3 hours in each pavilion.
If we are not eating, or drinking in one of the restaurants within Germany, Italy, Morocco and UK then it takes a half hour at most to see those countries. The longer you are in the park the more likely it is that you will relax and eat.
I just don't understand the logic behind this parks growth, adding IP's or not.
It's like watching a fly trying to get out of a window that's closed while the one next to it is wide open.
We probably have a better chance of seeing pavilions expanded than we do of new countries being added. However knowing how they like to tear down perfectly fine attractions I suspect that 2 out of 3 new additions will result in the loss of an old favorite somewhere.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
But the main agreement went south...
Are we back to “pavilions work...they’ve just always gone no where due to unforeseen circumstances”??
Boy I hope not. We have to rely on patterns or we will become silly people...
aladdin2007
Well-Known Member
and the Norwegian government was given a chance for pavilion sponsorship again during the great Frozen debate a few years ago, in which they declined.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
It’s the contribution to longterm costs that I think are the problem.
They just need to ask for a fee up front and not some complex web of longterm fees. It’s hard to justify 10+ years of bills when the entire benefit to the sponsor boils down to “intangibles” and “the Disney brand”
Four years after the pavilion was opened by the Crown Prince of Norway.
Hardly south. Disney bought them out.
You don’t have to preach to me. The Mouse has enough money to run - and add to - Showcase all by itself.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
But the fundamental problem....and why I play the Nancy...is they will not.
I assume it’s they don’t want to start the “slide” by changing their terms...and they don’t think there’s an advantage to paying themselves...or it would have happened already
Last edited:
See Pleasure Islands demise to
Which is the whole point of what I've been saying.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Yes...a notable example. A target on property comes to mind too
