"Adios" El Rio del Tiempo!

[The Mom]

I wonder if anyone else has stopped to consider that when Epcot (or EPCOT) was envisioned, it never occurred to anyone that visitors would have the financial resources to make multiple visits?

Previous generations just didn't take more than one yearly vacation, and a resort/theme park like WDW would be a once in a lifetime trip. (At least until the children were grown, and could make another)

However, they found themselves in the both the wonderful yet problematical position of having some guests who become bored with the same old thing, so they MUST change attractions, yet try to not alienate guests who do not want change.

WDW is a victim of both it's own popularity, and the increase in disposable income among large numbers of people. It's like the movie stars who have to wear a different outfit for every gala. Sometimes they'll make a great choice, yet other times they'll make you wonder if they even looked in a mirror. The same with WDW. In an effort to present something new, they'll come up with a dud now and then.

We can only hope that this change (whatever it may be) will be an improvement.

 

[planet7]

Disney seems to be making each of the parks much more similar than they were before.

Corporate America loves homogenization and consistent mediocrity--as, apparently, do the "unwashed masses" (no, I'm not bashing any person or group here; settle down). Look at the outrageous success of McDonalds. Is the food really good? Some of it is reasonably tasty, most is mediocre at best. I enjoy McDonalds myself, but I'll be the first person to tell you that they're far from the best burgers out there. And it's no longer particularly inexpensive for what you get. McDonalds' strongest selling point is consistency. It may be consistently mediocre, but at least you know what you're getting.

Entertainment is the same way. Most people are afraid to step out of their comfort zones and experience something different, and possibly better. It's the same reason we see dull-as-toast and highly formulaic movies and television. They're easy to produce, and easy to sell. Just like McDonalds hamburgers. Once in a great while, you'll see someone buck the trend, step way outside their comfort zone--and, dare I use the dreaded "R" word?--take a real risk. But for every LOST, you have a hundred WonderFalls and Dead Like Me's--creative, engaging, intelligent, and doomed.

Corporations don't want to take that risk--even if it means the potential of having a blockbuster on their hands--as they're entrenched in risk-avoidance. The risk-averse Disney of today would never have created EPCOT Center. Nor would they have created Disneyland. Would someone else as bold and visionary have come along and done it? Perhaps, but not likely. How many parks have we seen that come close in the last 50 years? Some may have great technology, they may even try to push the envelope, but they're still the product of corporate engines that lack the heart and soul that made earlier Disney enterprises great. It's reasonably safe to say that if Disney doesn't create something truly extraordinary, that touches our lives and makes us want to write on fan boards, it ain't gonna happen. And increasingly, it won't happen with Disney.

Eisner was largely responsible for Disney's risk aversion, reportedly following the failure of EuroDisney/DLP/whatever they're calling it this week. Nevermind that he set up that failure, by siting it in France, and believing in the outrageous attendance projections. That's another story entirely. But it was the catalyst, and it established Disney's mindset. And it's an easy sell. Wall Street loves it--as they're risk-averse themselves, and let's face it, every company is betrothed to Wall Street now. But now Iger has an opportunity--and a responsibility--to both the shareholders and the paying public, to do something better.

People may love the characters, but turning an attraction into a Happy Meal isn't the answer. It's the easy way out, it's risk-avoidance, it's uncreative, and truly un-Disney.

G7

 

[planet7]

However, they found themselves in the both the wonderful yet problematical position of having some guests who become bored with the same old thing, so they MUST change attractions, yet try to not alienate guests who do not want change.

Why is it that these discussions all come back to this faulty argument, that you're either for or against change? It's just not as simple as that. Not all changes are created equal, and opposing unworthy changes doesn't make anyone "against change" as a whole.

 

[planet7]

WDW was never meant to be an educational institution.

The Magic Kingdom, no. But WDW as a whole? I think Walt would disagree (and he'd know, trust me).

The Magic Kingdom was a means to an end--a way of financing the real reason for the WDW property, namely EPCOT (not EPCOT Center). The stated purpose of EPCOT was a showcase for technology, urban planning principles, and culture. EPCOT Center may certainly watered down the grand vision of Walt's EPCOT, but it retained much of its heart and soul--and its focus on educating and inspiring people to create a better future.

We can debate until the cows come home, whether or not it was a good idea to push education in an venue that is seen more as entertainment. But the fact is, the WDW property was about education from its inception.

G7

 

[planet7]

Epcot Center was successful for Walt Disney World because it drew a segment of the general public that would have never spent a day in a theme park otherwise. Most of the expanded development that came to WDW afterwards, such as Pleasure Island, West Side, the expanded golf courses, and the Disney Institute

Yowza!! As steeped in Disney history as I am, I actually never thought of it that way. I always saw EPCOT as being a different kind of park, and embraced that even as they tried to homogenize it--but I just never quite made the connection that it's "The Theme Park for the Rest of Us"--and that it brought a whole new audience to Disney.

Awesome post!

G7

 

[Main Street USA]

Uh, Okay. Let's see what you are saying here.

1) You walked into this thread, called "Adios El Rio del Tiempo!"

2) You decided to reply, and started with the following text :

3) Now you say "it's obvious I wasn't directly talking about El Rio...", after 1) and 2). Huh? I guess there I go being slow again...

If that's the case, why did you post your rant in this thread, about El Rio? Did you just stumble along the wrong thread? Would anything about Epcot have done? Would a thread about the food choices at "Sunshine Seasons" been just as appropriate?

you were among those tricked into thinking Epcot was "educational". Yes, they used to deal with more topics and in a more banal way, but it's a big leap to "educational".

You have a lot of time to type!

This thread is about El RIo, and I was responding to a mild thread drift about Epcot in general. Had you read that, it would've been obvious what I was referring to.

As for Epcot having been educational, it was, and it still is....just in a different, child-like way. I was never arguing how educational it once was, nor was that ever my main point about any of this. Just because it got mentioned by a few others and myself, doesn't mean it's all I had to say. Far from it, actually. I typed about so much more, but you like many other seem to pick out one sentence from the posts of others and then try to bury them with it.

I'm not here to fight with you or anyone else. I love the Epcot of today as much as anyone I've ever met. I've NEVER said otherwise. I miss the original EPCOT, though...simply because it was unique, original, and smart.

The uniqueness, originality, and brains of Epcot are still being picked away as we speak. That's my only point, really. We'd all have to agree that Epcot's uniquness, originality, and "smartness" has been taken away, no?

So, to sum it up....I love Epcot. I loved EPCOT Center. I'll continue to love Epcot no matter what happens to it (generally speaking).

I just have no idea how anyone can look at the original, see what is sitting there now, and not think that it's been dumbed down to suit the general public.

All of this in a thread with El Rio in the title? You bet. It happens all the time on these forums, and I know that you know it does. Not sure why you jumped on me for simply replying to another's post about Epcot as a whole.

 

[planet7]

Epcot lost many of its guests after a short time due to its lack of exciting attractions for the family. The park had one of the lowest attendance ratings of the three parks (this was before Animal Kingdom was built)

You know, I read this over and over on fan boards, and every time, I scratch my head. When did EPCOT Center suddely lose favor? It certainly wasn't well into the 80's. I worked there until '89, and the park was always packed. I was "Disney'd out" for a while after that, and didn't visit for a few years--so maybe it started to slip after that. Or maybe, just maybe, this is one of those things where if enough people say it, it starts to sound true.

G7

 

[Main Street USA]

That's really what it comes down to for you, doesn't it?

I guess I shouldn't have wasted my time replying to you at all then.

Yes, yes, we know - the rest of humanity is below you, and that you are some how enlightened beyond what the average human couldn't even dream of understanding.

Does that about cover it? You repeat it over and over in so many ways.

My God, as important as you must be to have that attitude, I wonder how in heck you have time to argue on Disney message boards.

AEfx

Man, you like to make things up. I never came close to saying anything of the sort. However, I can see how offended you get when I refer to the dumbed down general public, so Ill assume (like you tend to do about everything) that you feel you're a part of that group. In order to save you from being further belittled by the almighty ME ( ) I'll just ignore you from here on out in this thread. You're welcome.

 

[Main Street USA]

Cute...but no. It's gonna happen. The animation is currently in production.

Learned lots today...mainly that I must be "slow" since I like Epcot a little more every time it inches away from the original "Center". I'll just be over here fiddling while the old snore Epcot burns. :wave:

Again, not what I said, but since you feel that way....have fun. I hope you get educated in the process.

 

[Main Street USA]

Your inference that only intelligent people can appreciate the "near genius" of a particular theme park attraction is not accurate. I'm smart enough to see what they're trying to do. It just doesn't hold my interest. Am I willing to invest time in an attraction? Yes, as long as there's a payoff. El Rio and SSE are prime examples of attractions that have limited return for my invested time.

...and my point is this:

Your attitude is very common these days, hence the changes to Epcot.

 

[Victor]

Can't we all just get along?

I mean, can't we agree that EPCOT Center and the Epcot of today could have worked in unison if done right? JII could have simply been updated, not reduced to crap. Mission: Space could have been built alongside Horizons. The Living Seas didn't need Nemo, it needed TLC in general. There is a place for both the old and the new in Epcot, but the powers that be don't see it that way.

I think we can all agree that El Rio definitely needs an upgrade. World Showcase needs an upgrade as a whole. But it isn't as simple as cleaning the ride up and throwing in Donald so they can draw a crowd.

 

[Main Street USA]

I don't think being "slow" has anything to do with your enjoyment of EPCOT Center.

While I agree with pretty much everything you typed there, this one line got me. This simply isn't (although it seems that's all anyone read of what I wrote) what I was saying. Today's people and culture (especially in the US) have changed to the point where the average person can't seem to pay attention long enough to appreciate the things that made EPCOT Center so great.

 

[planet7]

El Rio and SSE are prime examples of attractions that have limited return for my invested time.

Oh my God. Has the "MBA Mentality" permeated every last reach of our culture? :brick:

G7

 

[Main Street USA]

Corporate America loves homogenization and consistent mediocrity--as, apparently, do the "unwashed masses" (no, I'm not bashing any person or group here; settle down). Look at the outrageous success of McDonalds. Is the food really good? Some of it is reasonably tasty, most is mediocre at best. I enjoy McDonalds myself, but I'll be the first person to tell you that they're far from the best burgers out there. And it's no longer particularly inexpensive for what you get. McDonalds' strongest selling point is consistency. It may be consistently mediocre, but at least you know what you're getting.

Entertainment is the same way. Most people are afraid to step out of their comfort zones and experience something different, and possibly better. It's the same reason we see dull-as-toast and highly formulaic movies and television. They're easy to produce, and easy to sell. Just like McDonalds hamburgers. Once in a great while, you'll see someone buck the trend, step way outside their comfort zone--and, dare I use the dreaded "R" word?--take a real risk. But for every LOST, you have a hundred WonderFalls and Dead Like Me--creative, engaging, intelligent, and doomed.

Corporations don't want to take that risk--even if it means the potential of having a blockbuster on their hands--as they're entrenched in risk-avoidance. The risk-averse Disney of today would never have created EPCOT Center. Nor would they have created Disneyland. Would someone else as bold and visionary have come along and done it? Perhaps, but not likely. How many parks have we seen that come close in the last 50 years? Some may have great technology, they may even try to push the envelope, but they're still the product of corporate engines that lack the heart and soul that made earlier Disney enterprises great. It's reasonably safe to say that if Disney doesn't create something truly extraordinary, that touches our lives and makes us want to write on fan boards, it ain't gonna happen. And increasingly, it won't happen with Disney.

Eisner was largely responsible for Disney's risk aversion, reportedly following the failure of EuroDisney/DLP/whatever they're calling it this week. Nevermind that he set up that failure, but siting it in France, and believing in the outrageous attendance projections. That's another story entirely. But it was the catalyst, and it established Disney's mindset. And it's an easy sell. Wall Street loves it--as they're risk-averse themselves, and let's face it, every company is betrothed to Wall Street now. But now Iger has an opportunity--and a responsibility--to both the shareholders and the paying public, to do something better.

People may love the characters, but turning an attraction into a Happy Meal isn't the answer. It's the easy way out, it's risk-avoidance, it's uncreative, and truly un-Disney.

Bingo.

 

[Main Street USA]

You know, I read this over and over on fan boards, and every time, I scratch my head. When did EPCOT Center suddely lose favor? It certainly wasn't well into the 80's. I worked there until '89, and the park was always packed. I was "Disney'd out" for a while after that, and didn't visit for a few years--so maybe it started to slip after that. Or maybe, just maybe, this is one of those things where if enough people say it, it starts to sound true.

G7

Another bingo.............man, you're on tonight. You're other posts were right on, too.

 

[planet7]

Another bingo.............man, you're on tonight. You're other posts were right on, too.

[Holding the microphone and in my best cheesy Las Vegas act voice...] Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.




G7

 

[planet7]

EPCOT WAS RUNNING SECOND TO THE MAGIC KINGDOM!!! What more could you want?

Remember the "Cola Wars"? Coke was always, and almost certainly always will be dominant. Pepsi wasn't exactly hurting, but they couldn't stand they weren't dominant. Fair enough. But Coke was equally upset that being dominant simply wasn't enough--they had to have the entire market share. Enter "New Coke", which clearly was designed to capture Pepsi's market share, by tastiing more like Pepsi (albeit a flat Pepsi)--yet alienating the original, larger customer base of Coke drinkers in the process. They could have created a separate product, but instead chose to bastardize their flagship product. Corporate stupidity is just staggering.

Disney has for years been doing its own "Cola Wars" with the parks. I can't imagine anything ever supplanting the Magic Kingdom in the #1 spot. But not happy with owning the two most successful park franchises in human history (I'm grouping Disneyland in here--so it's the Kingdoms and EPCOT), they had to do a "New Coke" on EPCOT. And what we got is... well, New Coke--er, New Epcot. Not as refreshing, and very flat.

G7

 

[mkepcotmgmak]

Hey, I`m just Happy that the 3 caballeros are Donald Duck & friends and not Steve Martin, Chevy Chase and Martin Short! :lol:

not me... :lookaroun *sings* "My little buttercup...":lol:

 

[mkepcotmgmak]

I hope this is true! This has potential to be funny, entertaining AND DARE I SAY... EDUCATIONAL! What's great about it is that Disney isn't using Stitch, any Pixar character, Jack Sparrow or another pirate - but yet Donald (a well-known character) and Panchito and Jose (not well-known to today's generation). Sounds GREAT IMO.

(although I have never wanted to see "characters" in the WS attracions, I think I am actually looking forward to this! (I hope there are some 3CAB AAs!)

 

[mousermerf]

You know, I read this over and over on fan boards, and every time, I scratch my head. When did EPCOT Center suddely lose favor? It certainly wasn't well into the 80's. I worked there until '89, and the park was always packed. I was "Disney'd out" for a while after that, and didn't visit for a few years--so maybe it started to slip after that. Or maybe, just maybe, this is one of those things where if enough people say it, it starts to sound true.

G7

Just prior to M:S's opening. With massive walls covering most of Future World East and the whole figment debacle fresh in the public's mind the park was not bringing in guests.

Attendance went below MGM. They stopped hiring CMs, told seasonal CMs to transfer to other parks, worked part-timers two days every other week, made full timers drop a day of work, and prohibitted any overtime. They trimmed as many CM positions from rotations as possible, even eliminated greeters from the entrances of attractions for a period.

This is after the park had reached capacity-phases over Easter but before the Christmas-NYE holidays that they had more guests then expected. So many that they sent WDW's research team out into the parking lot to figure out where the people had come from (by counting liscense plates and surveying.)