News New Park Entrance coming to Epcot

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Distance is your friend when it comes to the appearance of something.
Absolutely. I've spent much of my life in the sign business...you wouldn't believe what some have looked like after a few years in New England weather even though they look fine from a distance (I once had to repair a wooden sign that was so rotted from the inside-out thanks to construction that allowed water to get inside that I could literally poke my finger through the surface).
 

WondersOfLife

Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
The pavillions at EPCOT for the most part were designed to be updated easily if they wanted. Energy, The Land, and WoL either mad film/post-show displays that could be swapped out. Imagination was more or less timeless. The Seas displays could be updated easily. Spaceship Earth's decent has been. That's because most of the rides were set in the past leading up to the future. The only one that could not have been updated easily was Horizons, but the post-IMAX section was always set in the way distant future anyways.
Yep. As I said, they just didn’t want to keep up with it.
 

sedati

Well-Known Member
Yep. As I said, they just didn’t want to keep up with it.
Imagine you had an addition put on your home and it ended up costing far more than planned and ended up being far less than was originally proposed. And if on top of that everything that was meant to last at ten years needed extensive work well before, then you'd be hard-pressed to open your wallet so wide again.
 

bpiper

Well-Known Member
Imagine you had an addition put on your home and it ended up costing far more than planned and ended up being far less than was originally proposed. And if on top of that everything that was meant to last at ten years needed extensive work well before, then you'd be hard-pressed to open your wallet so wide again.
I find it hard to believe that the designers of Epcot didn't know that their attractions would need periodic refreshing. I would be shocked if they didn't even have a chart projecting what the refresh cycle timeline would be and what parts would need to be changed as they aged and what the projected costs would be. I sure would want to know these things before greenlighting them.

The difference is that MGMT at that time understood that its part of the cost of doing business. Just like a local amusement park knows that they need to do a major ride every few years and do small attractions in the off years.
If you stop investing, people stop coming.

The problem became that the new MGMT, (starting with later Eisner and continuing with Bob Igor) didn't want to do the investment because they just wanted to keep using WDW as the Disney ATM machine. If you have to put back a $20 for every $100 you take out, your not maximizing your withdrawals. When the attendance started to dip, they created the festivals to get people to keep coming. Painting over the rotten wood that was growing. It wasn't until the festivals weren't cutting it anymore, did they realize that they need to put back into the ATM some of those twenties.

Compounding the problem is that the type of park that the Imagineers created as Epcot, demanded periodic updating. Magic Kingdom, not so much. Mainly just maintenance and capacity increases.
I would say that the studios is similar to Epcot, while AK is more like MK.

If you look at what they are putting into IPcot, you can see that its attractions with staying power so that they don't have to replace or highly rework them periodically. I would argue that they have done the same thing at the Studios, but still have some more to do.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
They did. Life expectancy was up to ten years.

I assume a lot of that was for the pavilion overall rather than the rides themselves. I think most of the original rides would work fine today other than maybe needing to change the last scene or two. They certainly wouldn't have needed to change the vast majority of World of Motion (which was a vastly superior ride to either incarnation of Test Track), but the whole post-show would have needed an overhaul.

On the other hand, closing World of Motion did give us a few more years of Horizons!
 

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
I assume a lot of that was for the pavilion overall rather than the rides themselves. I think most of the original rides would work fine today other than maybe needing to change the last scene or two. They certainly wouldn't have needed to change the vast majority of World of Motion (which was a vastly superior ride to either incarnation of Test Track), but the whole post-show would have needed an overhaul.

On the other hand, closing World of Motion did give us a few more years of Horizons!

I’d have to think they they planned for the ride systems to be maintained as well. Or at least I hope they did. 40 years for SSE’s Omnimover is at least 10 years too many.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Right, I knew what you were referring to. :) Martin's videos on the original EPCOT Center rides usually make mention of the ability to replace content, IIRC. :)

They probably do -- haven't watched any of them recently. I think the most recent one I watched was World of Motion but it was several months ago.
 

sedati

Well-Known Member
There's a reason the original proposal for World Showcase (at the TTC) had over thrity countries and EPCOT Center opened with eight. The fundamental financial structure for this massive undertaking had proven deeply flawed before a single shovel hit the dirt. Of those eight, only three had attractions. Of those, only one had a proper ride and that was scaled down and screen dependant. Shops and resturaunts did abound however- Paul Pressler learned his dirty tricks somewhere after all.
But surely once the park was open and everyone saw the great success and value of those investments, others would be eager to join in.

Surely...

The park was a glorious mistake. If you were lucky enough to see it in it's early days, treasure that mistake, but stop expecting it to happen again in a similar manner. Expect greatness- insist on it, but you're not ever getting 1982 back.
IMHO
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
I find it hard to believe that the designers of Epcot didn't know that their attractions would need periodic refreshing. I would be shocked if they didn't even have a chart projecting what the refresh cycle timeline would be and what parts would need to be changed as they aged and what the projected costs would be. I sure would want to know these things before greenlighting them.

The difference is that MGMT at that time understood that its part of the cost of doing business. Just like a local amusement park knows that they need to do a major ride every few years and do small attractions in the off years.
If you stop investing, people stop coming.

The problem became that the new MGMT, (starting with later Eisner and continuing with Bob Igor) didn't want to do the investment because they just wanted to keep using WDW as the Disney ATM machine. If you have to put back a $20 for every $100 you take out, your not maximizing your withdrawals. When the attendance started to dip, they created the festivals to get people to keep coming. Painting over the rotten wood that was growing. It wasn't until the festivals weren't cutting it anymore, did they realize that they need to put back into the ATM some of those twenties.

Compounding the problem is that the type of park that the Imagineers created as Epcot, demanded periodic updating. Magic Kingdom, not so much. Mainly just maintenance and capacity increases.
I would say that the studios is similar to Epcot, while AK is more like MK.

If you look at what they are putting into IPcot, you can see that its attractions with staying power so that they don't have to replace or highly rework them periodically. I would argue that they have done the same thing at the Studios, but still have some more to do.

OR... they thought the original sponsors would shell out a hundred million dollars or more every 10 years to keep the ride fresh just so they can have their name on the attraction.

Over in World Showcase, sponsorship worked because sponsors were running restaurants and shops and making money. In Future World, sponsorship was very very expensive passive advertising.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
There's a reason the original proposal for World Showcase (at the TTC) had over thrity countries and EPCOT Center opened with eight. The fundamental financial structure for this massive undertaking had proven deeply flawed before a single shovel hit the dirt. Of those eight, only three had attractions. Of those, only one had a proper ride and that was scaled down and screen dependant. Shops and resturaunts did abound however- Paul Pressler learned his dirty tricks somewhere after all.
But surely once the park was open and everyone saw the great success and value of those investments, others would be eager to join in.

Surely...

The park was a glorious mistake. If you were lucky enough to see it in it's early days, treasure that mistake, but stop expecting it to happen again in a similar manner. Expect greatness- insist on it, but you're not ever getting 1982 back.
IMHO
Go on continuing to ignore that EPCOT Center was profitable and helped keep the entire company in the black.
 

Brenthodge

Well-Known Member
There's a reason the original proposal for World Showcase (at the TTC) had over thrity countries and EPCOT Center opened with eight. The fundamental financial structure for this massive undertaking had proven deeply flawed before a single shovel hit the dirt. Of those eight, only three had attractions. Of those, only one had a proper ride and that was scaled down and screen dependant. Shops and resturaunts did abound however- Paul Pressler learned his dirty tricks somewhere after all.
But surely once the park was open and everyone saw the great success and value of those investments, others would be eager to join in.

Surely...

The park was a glorious mistake. If you were lucky enough to see it in it's early days, treasure that mistake, but stop expecting it to happen again in a similar manner. Expect greatness- insist on it, but you're not ever getting 1982 back.
IMHO
Well stated. I was lucky enough to have experienced that “mistake”, and loved that “mistake”, but am clear headed enough to realize that yes, it was an experiment, experience, and product, not of even it’s time, but of about a decade before. It was amazing, but our world has changed. I do think there are more elements of its original ideals that could be included in its reimagining, but I totally see the why they are doing what they are doing.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Well stated. I was lucky enough to have experienced that “mistake”, and loved that “mistake”, but am clear headed enough to realize that yes, it was an experiment, experience, and product, not of even it’s time, but of about a decade before. It was amazing, but our world has changed. I do think there are more elements of its original ideals that could be included in its reimagining, but I totally see the why they are doing what they are doing.
You don’t use the imagery and iconography of a mistake to sell something “new”.
 

Brenthodge

Well-Known Member
You don’t use the imagery and iconography of a mistake to sell something “new”.
Mistake was probably not the best choice of words, but I get what he is saying. EPCOT center was an attempt at reconciling a visionary dream of Disney with a reality that could actually happen. I feel like it was a project that needed to happen and Disney changed because of it, but shifts in management thinking since it’s inception no longer align with its ideals.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Mistake was probably not the best choice of words, but I get what he is saying. EPCOT center was an attempt at reconciling a visionary dream of Disney with a reality that could actually happen. I feel like it was a project that needed to happen and Disney changed because of it, but shifts in management thinking since it’s inception no longer align with its ideals.
Shifts in management, not a problem with the park, especially the idea that it was a financial failure. None of his issues of aesthetics or costs are being addressed either.
 

Brenthodge

Well-Known Member
Shifts in management, not a problem with the park, especially the idea that it was a financial failure. None of his issues of aesthetics or costs are being addressed either.
While it was successful out of the gate, Short term gain vs long term investment can apply here. The financial model they funded the park on was flawed and became more so over time. The fact that mgmt didn’t restructure that in a way that assumed Disney would foot more of the bill caused more problems. I think they continued down an unsustainable path far too long hoping “someone else” would find the major updates needed. No I’ve did, and THEY didn’t, so now we are at the place that I think current mgmt sees the core mission as unrelatable now and is looking for “long game” solutions that won’t get them back into the situation their poor management got them to.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
While it was successful out of the gate, Short term gain vs long term investment can apply here. The financial model they funded the park on was flawed and became more so over time. The fact that mgmt didn’t restructure that in a way that assumed Disney would foot more of the bill caused more problems. I think they continued down an unsustainable path far too long hoping “someone else” would find the major updates needed. No I’ve did, and THEY didn’t, so now we are at the place that I think current mgmt sees the core mission as unrelatable now and is looking for “long game” solutions that won’t get them back into the situation their poor management got them to.
Disney spent decades trying to not invest in all of the parks. The fundamental changes with their business that made this an issue across the board have not changed and will not be changed by this project.
 

Brenthodge

Well-Known Member
Disney spent decades trying to not invest in all of the parks. The fundamental changes with their business that made this an issue across the board have not changed and will not be changed by this project.
I’m confused. So are you for or against tap lights added onto spaceship earth? I’ve lost you here.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom