Walt Disney World: "Too Big For Its Own Good"?

[T.Will]

I was listening to a Youtube Disney Parks Livestream and the news of the upcoming Epcot Play Pavillion came up. One of the commentators brought his opinion on the matter that spoke to his larger criticism of Walt Disney World. Here's a transcription as best I could make.

"This goes back to what I've been saying, which is, Walt Disney World is too big for its own good.

Because, like, look at Epcot. They have so much room and so much space, and they built it up so quickly. There was no time to let it naturally expand. They felt like "Well, we can't build this giant theme park and not have anything in it."

So, you know, what they did was they created these massive buildings which, yeah at first housed popular attractions. But, in my opinion, the attractions really weren't that good. They were...not high-quality versions what they should've been.

I just feel like Disney World is too big for its own good. It's full of a bunch of what I call nothingness, you know, in order to fill the gaps."

I decided to share this with you guys because it's an interesting outlook on the resort. I understand where he's coming from. There are parts of the resort that are underutilized. But I think he's overlooking the stuff WDW has to offer. It's not perfect, nor even what Walt fully intended, but it's a resort that has a lot of love put into it from the beginning to this day (even with all the junk seeping through). I'm not explaining my disagreement well, but it's the best I can say.

What do you guys think?

 

[Brickrancher]

If you are going to build a vacation kingdom where people want to go and come back year after year, you must go big and include something for everyone. People are all different and want to see a variety of attractions. Some things I think boring are other peoples favorites. By starting large and gauging reactions through popularity and surveys, Disney allows for growth and tweaking. Anyone knows it is more cost effective to start out with a big enough footprint to grow and change, rather than start small and constantly do minor additions. It is also less disruptive for guests, and can build a level of excitement as guests see changes coming behind Disney's excellent construction barriers.

Part of my joy at Disney is looking at the less utilized areas and speculating about what will come next, or how they could make an area of the park better. People need to relax and let Disney grow and change as they see fit. I think the last almost fifty years has shown that they know what they are doing. Not everything is a hit, but overall, their success is amazing.

 

[bUU]

Is WDW too big for "its" own good? or is it just that it is too big in comparison to some ideal that we might personally have in mind?

 

[eliza61nyc]

Is WDW too big for "its" own good? or is it just that it is too big in comparison to some ideal that we might personally have in mind?

Ding, Ding, ding. we have a winner. Again we have to remember that this is a site built on the Disney of "old". It's what they grew up on and what they love. Disney is a conglomerate, a bunch of different parts that come together as a whole. the parks division has expanded.

 

[Roy G. Dis]

The size was fine in the 80s and most of the 90s when the public could be entertained by far less complex attractions and, for example, booths in those massive Epcot buildings. Now we can walk around with high quality entertainment in our pocket. Our appetites and desires to be "dazzled" have far exceeded Disney's ability to keep up. We probably remember constantly being dazzled in those earlier times without considering that our standards have been exponentially raised as tech has become cheaper and more accessible outside of the parks. Now, when we come back, we wonder... "Is this it? Was this always it? Why does Epcot feel so... empty?"

 

[JIMINYCR]

Awww... Heck no. WDW if you are talking about "the parks", if anything is too small. If you are talking resorts and room availability, then yes. Having the 4 parks, the 2 water parks, DS, mini golf, 2 golf courses and more... its still not enough for the numbers they are drawing in if you want a pleasurable vacation like it used to be. As it is now, the crowds combined with lack of dining areas, strain on transportation, lack of staffing in all areas, and competition to get desired bookings, shows a lack of necessary growth to handle it all.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I'm guessing from the way that's phrased that the commenter is a Disneyland fanboy. At Disneyland (less so at DCA), everything is crammed on top of everything else do there's much more to do per square foot. I can't think of any objective reason why one would be better than another, so it's a matter of personal preference. I personally like space.

 

[larryz]

WDW de-emphasized the "whole resort" aspect some time ago and is now focused on "Theme Parks and Hotels/TimeShares."

 

[wdisney9000]

The size was fine in the 80s and most of the 90s when the public could be entertained by far less complex attractions and, for example, booths in those massive Epcot buildings. Now we can walk around with high quality entertainment in our pocket. Our appetites and desires to be "dazzled" have far exceeded Disney's ability to keep up. We probably remember constantly being dazzled in those earlier times without considering that our standards have been exponentially raised as tech has become cheaper and more accessible outside of the parks. Now, when we come back, we wonder... "Is this it? Was this always it? Why does Epcot feel so... empty?"

The constant claims of smart phones numbing our ability to be "dazzled" is so ridiculous, IMO and says far more about an individuals mentality or lack of attention and intellect than it does about Disneys ability to create unique entertainment.

I have watched young children and old people alike stand there with eyes wide open amazed by Matsuriza (drum show) in Japan pavilion or ooh- and ahhh as the CMs paint characters on the ground with a wet broom in Magic Kingdom. Sitting at a table with my wife and niece on Sunset Blvd in Hollywood Studios as we enjoy some snacks and laugh and joke is just as much fun as riding Tower of Terror.

WDW is not simply cool rides and technology. Its an experience in an amazing environment to enjoy with loved ones or even by yourself. Its an atmosphere with layers of storytelling and theme that you can get lost in. Sadly, the people who lack the ability to enjoy anything outside of social media and have zero attention span will settle for a roller coaster in a box because they can get a cool picture for Twitter because its "new".

 

[Roy G. Dis]

The constant claims of smart phones numbing our ability to be "dazzled" is so ridiculous, IMO and says far more about an individuals mentality or lack of attention and intellect than it does about Disneys ability to create unique entertainment.

I have watched young children and old people alike stand there with eyes wide open amazed by Matsuriza (drum show) in Japan pavilion or ooh- and ahhh as the CMs paint characters on the ground with a wet broom in Magic Kingdom. Sitting at a table with my wife and niece on Sunset Blvd in Hollywood Studios as we enjoy some snacks and laugh and joke is just as much fun as riding Tower of Terror.

WDW is not simply cool rides and technology. Its an experience in an amazing environment to enjoy with loved ones or even by yourself. Its an atmosphere with layers of storytelling and theme that you can get lost in. Sadly, the people who lack the ability to enjoy anything outside of social media and have zero attention span will settle for a roller coaster in a box because they can get a cool picture for Twitter because its "new".

WDW is cool for a lot of reasons. Phone technology will never replace physical performances and atmosphere... but it has caught up to peoples' needs for cheap dopamine fixes. I seem to remember the Epcot buildings having lots of "neat" things that also gave dopamine hits to me when I was a kid.

People are still paying out the gills for the physical performances and atmosphere (and RIDES) but I can understand why Disney has shuttered the big spaces that used to host minor attractions.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

People are still paying out the gills for the physical performances and atmosphere (and RIDES) but I can understand why Disney has shuttered the big spaces that used to host minor attractions.

Body Wars was a not Minor Attraction in Wonders of Life. Body Wars was a E-ticket ride. Epcot lost an E-ticket ride when Disney decided that building was going to be used as a festival center for certain times of the year.

You basically called Simulators minor attractions since that is what Body Wars was. Simulator attractions are not minor attractions to say the least and they are a type of a thrill ride.

 

[Oddysey]

The size was fine in the 80s and most of the 90s when the public could be entertained by far less complex attractions and, for example, booths in those massive Epcot buildings. Now we can walk around with high quality entertainment in our pocket. Our appetites and desires to be "dazzled" have far exceeded Disney's ability to keep up. We probably remember constantly being dazzled in those earlier times without considering that our standards have been exponentially raised as tech has become cheaper and more accessible outside of the parks. Now, when we come back, we wonder... "Is this it? Was this always it? Why does Epcot feel so... empty?"

I think you are on point with most everything you said, but Epcot has significant usable space that was once in use and simply is not anymore. The park is literally a shell and many buildings are simply a facsade in many areas of FW. All said, I am glad Disney is finally taking notice and starting projects that should reverse the issue.

 

[T.Will]

I'm curious to hear what Epcot Center visitors think of this passage.

So, you know, what they did was they created these massive buildings which, yeah at first housed popular attractions. But, in my opinion, the attractions really weren't that good. They were...not high-quality versions what they should've been.

I've never experienced Epcot Center, though what I've seen looks well thought out, optimistic, and some of the best of WED Imagineering.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Two big, related missteps IMO:

Closing an attraction before you have something to replace it.

Replacing an existing attraction rather than adding the new one elsewhere and increasing capacity. (GMR could have stayed.)

 

[Oddysey]

I'm curious to hear what Epcot Center visitors think of this passage.

So, you know, what they did was they created these massive buildings which, yeah at first housed popular attractions. But, in my opinion, the attractions really weren't that good. They were...not high-quality versions what they should've been.

I've never experienced Epcot Center, though what I've seen looks well thought out, optimistic, and some of the best of WED Imagineering.

My thoughts on the passage cause me to sincerely wonder if the commentator ever experienced Epcot Center at its peak. The attractions and interactive areas where literally testing the limits of what was possible at the time. If the commentator is making the argument that they were "boring" I could understand that because many in the general public shared this sentiment (not me) when it came edutainment.

The original Epcot Center was very much like abstract art. Either you got it and it was your thing or you simply didn't get it and thought it was boring. I get that people have different taste, but even from the most objective stand point I do not understand how the commentator can match Epcot Center and low quality.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I do not understand how the commentator can match Epcot Center and low quality.

Maybe “less impressive” (compared to the MK and DL) would be more apt.

I didn’t go until the late 90’s, and I was an adult. Those indoor areas seemed very “school auditorium” to me. And I wasn’t going to learn much at my age.

But I skip the room after SSE as well.

 

[Oddysey]

Maybe “less impressive” (compared to the MK and DL) would be more apt.

I didn’t go until the late 90’s, and I was an adult. Those indoor areas seemed very “school auditorium” to me. And I wasn’t going to learn much at my age.

But I skip the room after SSE as well.

Epcot was in poor shape by the time the late 90's rolled around and was indeed less impressive. Quality of the attractions had also declined due to lack of updating or updating that did not match the quality of what was there previously. Epcot was no longer pushing the boundaries of what was possible. IMO, you arrived at the beginning of the FW decline. That said, I can completely understand why you found it "less impressive" when compared to MK and DL.

This notion leads me in a circle. I question whether the commentator ever experienced the original peak or near peak Epcot Center.

 

[T.Will]

This notion leads me in a circle. I question whether the commentator ever experienced the original peak or near peak Epcot Center.

I don't believe so, or he's never said he experienced it. He's primarily a Disneyland fan. He even has his own Youtube channel dedicated to just Disneyland and its history. So I think he's moreso observed Epcot, along with the rest of WDW, from a DL standpoint and criticizes it for what he sees as its shortcomings.

 

[danlb_2000]

I'm curious to hear what Epcot Center visitors think of this passage.

So, you know, what they did was they created these massive buildings which, yeah at first housed popular attractions. But, in my opinion, the attractions really weren't that good. They were...not high-quality versions what they should've been.

I've never experienced Epcot Center, though what I've seen looks well thought out, optimistic, and some of the best of WED Imagineering.

Having experienced Epcot in the mid-80's I would have to disagree with this. He is implying that they built the huge buildings and the loaded them with a bunch of low quality filler. I could see some people not be thrilled with the edutainement aspect of these rides, but I can't see anyone calling these low quality filler.

 

[monothingie]

I was listening to a Youtube Disney Parks Livestream and the news of the upcoming Epcot Play Pavillion came up. One of the commentators brought his opinion on the matter that spoke to his larger criticism of Walt Disney World. Here's a transcription as best I could make.

"This goes back to what I've been saying, which is, Walt Disney World is too big for its own good.

Because, like, look at Epcot. They have so much room and so much space, and they built it up so quickly. There was no time to let it naturally expand. They felt like "Well, we can't build this giant theme park and not have anything in it."

So, you know, what they did was they created these massive buildings which, yeah at first housed popular attractions. But, in my opinion, the attractions really weren't that good. They were...not high-quality versions what they should've been.

I just feel like Disney World is too big for its own good. It's full of a bunch of what I call nothingness, you know, in order to fill the gaps."

I decided to share this with you guys because it's an interesting outlook on the resort. I understand where he's coming from. There are parts of the resort that are underutilized. But I think he's overlooking the stuff WDW has to offer. It's not perfect, nor even what Walt fully intended, but it's a resort that has a lot of love put into it from the beginning to this day (even with all the junk seeping through). I'm not explaining my disagreement well, but it's the best I can say.

What do you guys think?

I find the commentator’s perspective humorous because of the arrogance coupled with ignorance in their comments. I would challenge them to educate themselves about what Epcot Center was and what its intent was. Have them Watch any one of @marni1971 videos and then backup their commentary. It is also most likely the perspective of a millennial judging the past based on today’s lack of attention span, ADD, face in the phone, instant gratification society.