All EPCOT Center, All the Time- Part II

[FigmentJedi]

One thing I would LOVE to see added to Epcot is a Yellow Submarine dark ride, located in the Great Britain section. After all, Norway has Maelstrom, which illustrates Norway's rich legends and history. Britain should get a signature ride too, and what could be better than one based on its most famous export, the Beatles?

But that would be an outside property and I know how much you hate Disney having those.

 

[HMF]

But that would be an outside property and I know how much you hate Disney having those.

Not to mention it has nothing whatsoever to do with Epcot.

 

[marni1971]

One thing I would LOVE to see added to Epcot is a Yellow Submarine dark ride, located in the Great Britain section. After all, Norway has Maelstrom, which illustrates Norway's rich legends and history. Britain should get a signature ride too, and what could be better than one based on its most famous export, the Beatles?

Oh please....

that`s all we have??

 

[fngoofy]

One thing I would LOVE to see added to Epcot is a Yellow Submarine dark ride, located in the Great Britain section. After all, Norway has Maelstrom, which illustrates Norway's rich legends and history. Britain should get a signature ride too, and what could be better than one based on its most famous export, the Beatles?

Oh please....

that`s all we have??

Doug the Head: We've got sandy beaches...

 

[JEANYLASER]

I would love to add Yellow Submarine dark ride located in the Great Britain section in Epcot too!

 

[Magenta Panther]

But that would be an outside property and I know how much you hate Disney having those.

And yet my favorite ride at DHS is The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, which is based on Rod Serling's Twilight Zone TV show, which Disney does not own.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. I have no beef with certain non-Disney entities appearing in the parks - as long as they're guest stars. Their appearance is especially appropriate in DHS, which is a park based on Hollywood and its various legends and stars, not just the ones that appeared in Disney movies. But when Kermit the frog and Spiderman are purchased and then shoehorned into the Disney pantheon alongside Mickey Mouse and Snow White, you better believe I hate that. Just like I hated those commercials with the Muppets promoting Disneyland. Those were just all kinds of wrong. There was one where Miss Piggy was riding in a teacup with that beautiful song "Bella Notte" from "Lady and the Tramp" playing in the background. That almost made me physically ill.
And seeing Kermit and Fozzie Bear standing in front of the castle where Mickey and Donald should be just doesn't sit right with me.

I sure hope I never see Spiderman climbing up the side of the Matterhorn, or I'd probably go ballistic. :ROFLOL:

 

[The Empress Lilly]

After 28 years, I'd be happy with anything remotely British being build in the UK pavilion.


I mean, the pub and those two houses look fine and all, but of all the countries surely Britain deserves a finished pavilion?

 

[Magenta Panther]

After 28 years, I'd be happy with anything remotely British being build in the UK pavilion.


I mean, the pub and those two houses look fine and all, but of all the countries surely Britain deserves a finished pavilion?

I agree. It seems ironic that Britain is so sparsely represented in Epcot when some of Disney's greatest creations were based on British works, such as "Mary Poppins", "Alice in Wonderland", "Peter Pan", "The Jungle Book" and especially "Winnie the Pooh". Given that, I think that Britain definitely deserves a larger presence.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I would love to add Yellow Submarine dark ride located in the Great Britain section in Epcot too!

I'm glad you agree. The Yellow Submarine movie was very whimsical and imaginative. A ride based on it could be awesome. The last time I was at the Great Britain area at Epcot, there was a Beatles tribute band playing there, and they were great. Everybody enjoyed them, including oldsters and little kids (who were dancing in the street to "Octopus' Garden".) I think a Yellow Submarine ride could have all-ages appeal. Disney should consider one, even if it doesn't greenlight that much-rumored Yellow Submarine movie remake...

And for the record, I hope it doesn't. Motion capture! Ugh!

 

[wolf359]

I agree. It seems ironic that Britain is so sparsely represented in Epcot when some of Disney's greatest creations were based on British works, such as "Mary Poppins", "Alice in Wonderland", "Peter Pan", "The Jungle Book" and especially "Winnie the Pooh". Given that, I think that Britain definitely deserves a larger presence.

Paint me sincerely confused then. On the one hand you say you hated it when Disney purchased the Muppets and Marvel characters and "shoehorned" then into the Disney pantheon alongside Disney-created characters, yet seem to exempt other characters that were bought up and added to the Disney pantheon exactly the same way, just in the past.

Winnie the Pooh is a prime example of this after-the-fact acquisition, and is still a sore spot to those that have a longer memory than the last few years.

Personally, I think Disney has a right to use whatever characters they want, if they use them to tell an interesting story. While some sit better with me more than others, it's a slippery slope when you start picking apart what is truly Disney and what was borrowed or even outright purchased for their use.

As for the UK pavilion specifically, I think with the depth and richness that history has to offer using the Beatles seems like a pretty weak subject for an entire attraction, in spite of my own love of the Beatles and the obvious visual opportunities.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Paint me sincerely confused then. On the one hand you say you hated it when Disney purchased the Muppets and Marvel characters and "shoehorned" then into the Disney pantheon alongside Disney-created characters, yet seem to exempt other characters that were bought up and added to the Disney pantheon exactly the same way, just in the past.

Winnie the Pooh is a prime example of this after-the-fact acquisition, and is still a sore spot to those that have a longer memory than the last few years.

Personally, I think Disney has a right to use whatever characters they want, if they use them to tell an interesting story. While some sit better with me more than others, it's a slippery slope when you start picking apart what is truly Disney and what was borrowed or even outright purchased for their use.

As for the UK pavilion specifically, I think with the depth and richness that history has to offer using the Beatles seems like a pretty weak subject for an entire attraction, in spite of my own love of the Beatles and the obvious visual opportunities.

Well, there's very little at the British pavilion now. Adding the Beatles to it would hardly hurt. And it would give it a touch of the kind of fun and fantasy that the Maelstrom ride provides to the Norway exhibit. I don't get the objection you seem to have to it.

And as for the purchased-character bit...seriously? "Exactly the same way"? Come on. Disney put its creativity into Pooh, Alice, Pan, the Jungle Book. It made its own version of those properties, and that's what we see onscreen and in the parks. Disney didn't just buy the Collodi version of Pinocchio and throw it up onscreen (and good thing too). And Dopey and Grumpy didn't even exist in the original version of the Snow White story. Disney created them! That's what makes them Disney. To say that Disney's purchase and adaptation of properties like Mary Poppins and Pooh is no different from the purchases of Marvel and the Muppets is to short-change and dismiss the incredible creative efforts of Walt and his artists. Thanks to them, Poppins and Pooh now have the Disney magic. Kermit and Spiderman never will. That's why they can't fit in and don't belong in the Magic Kingdom.

The above is not holy writ, BTW. It's just my opinion. You are not required to agree.

 

[Tigger1988]

Paint me sincerely confused then. On the one hand you say you hated it when Disney purchased the Muppets and Marvel characters and "shoehorned" then into the Disney pantheon alongside Disney-created characters, yet seem to exempt other characters that were bought up and added to the Disney pantheon exactly the same way, just in the past.

Winnie the Pooh is a prime example of this after-the-fact acquisition, and is still a sore spot to those that have a longer memory than the last few years.

Personally, I think Disney has a right to use whatever characters they want, if they use them to tell an interesting story. While some sit better with me more than others, it's a slippery slope when you start picking apart what is truly Disney and what was borrowed or even outright purchased for their use.

Exactly, Pooh and friends are first and foremost AA Milne and E.H Shepard's characters, Disney did not create them in any way, shape, or form. I believe legal disputes were still going on over the characters as recently as 2007.

 

[WDITrent]

Aw, I missed this thread!

 

[wolf359]

Well, there's very little at the British pavilion now. Adding the Beatles to it would hardly hurt. And it would give it a touch of the kind of fun and fantasy that the Maelstrom ride provides to the Norway exhibit. I don't get the objection you seem to have to it.

I agree the UK pavilion needs more than what it has, but with as rich and lengthy a history as those countries have, it would be a shame to sum up British history with...The Beatles. A Beatles attraction would be akin to adding a Bruce Springsteen attraction in America. He's great and as All-American as they come, but for summing up American history at EPCOT? I just don't see it.

And as for the purchased-character bit...seriously? "Exactly the same way"? Come on. Disney put its creativity into Pooh, Alice, Pan, the Jungle Book. It made its own version of those properties, and that's what we see onscreen and in the parks. Disney didn't just buy the Collodi version of Pinocchio and throw it up onscreen (and good thing too). And Dopey and Grumpy didn't even exist in the original version of the Snow White story. Disney created them! That's what makes them Disney. To say that Disney's purchase and adaptation of properties like Mary Poppins and Pooh is no different from the purchases of Marvel and the Muppets is to short-change and dismiss the incredible creative efforts of Walt and his artists. Thanks to them, Poppins and Pooh now have the Disney magic. Kermit and Spiderman never will. That's why they can't fit in and don't belong in the Magic Kingdom.

The above is not holy writ, BTW. It's just my opinion. You are not required to agree.

We've yet to even see WHAT Disney is going to do with the Marvel characters, or even if they're going to have any presence in the parks. So there's no way to know what amount of adaptation or "Disney-fication" might happen.

Nothing I've suggested was intended to short-change OR dismiss Disney's talents, either past or future; I was only pointing out that Disney's history is filled with properties not wholly original, and when you start criticizing some without even recognizing all the others in the past it makes the bias stand out pretty clearly.

The Muppets, Marvel, and even Pixar get a lot of bad press because they're the most recent add-ins, but a whole lot of other characters seem to get a pass because they've been around long enough that for those young enough to have grown up with them they already seem a part of Disney.

And while that list is pretty long and constantly growing, the strong majority of these characters and properties seem to end up going directly to Hollywood Studios, and because I have enough faith that Disney knows they can't just "shoehorn" certain things into the Magic Kingdom, I don't think it's necessary to dismiss these new characters before we've even seen HOW they might be incorporated into the parks, if at all.

 

[HMF]

I'm glad you agree. The Yellow Submarine movie was very whimsical and imaginative. A ride based on it could be awesome. The last time I was at the Great Britain area at Epcot, there was a Beatles tribute band playing there, and they were great. Everybody enjoyed them, including oldsters and little kids (who were dancing in the street to "Octopus' Garden".) I think a Yellow Submarine ride could have all-ages appeal. Disney should consider one, even if it doesn't greenlight that much-rumored Yellow Submarine movie remake...

And for the record, I hope it doesn't. Motion capture! Ugh!

I have not seen Yellow Submarine in years so Beatles fans feel free to correct me but isn't Modern-Day England (specifically Liverpool) portrayed in the film as a lonely dark depressing place? Is that really what we need in a World Showcase which is supposed to celebrate our world. OK' granted American Adventure has the Civil War/ Two Brothers thing but usually World Showcase stays away from negative depictions of the countries. After all the park is about people coming together to build a better tomorrow.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I have not seen Yellow Submarine in years so Beatles fans feel free to correct me but isn't Modern-Day England (specifically Liverpool) portrayed in the film as a lonely dark depressing place? Is that really what we need in a World Showcase which is supposed to celebrate our world. OK' granted American Adventure has the Civil War/ Two Brothers thing but usually World Showcase stays away from negative depictions of the countries. After all the park is about people coming together to build a better tomorrow.

What I remember is Pepperland becoming depressing after the Blue Meanies invade it. I don't remember Liverpool being shown in a negative light.

And as for people building a better tomorrow, a lot of Beatles songs were about that very subject.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Exactly, Pooh and friends are first and foremost AA Milne and E.H Shepard's characters, Disney did not create them in any way, shape, or form. I believe legal disputes were still going on over the characters as recently as 2007.

Disney created the Disney version of them, which is the version we see in the parks and in the movies. That version is under Disney ownership. Let me give you an example of how that works: The Wizard of Oz books have fallen out of copyright and into the public domain. Anyone is able to exploit them now in any way they wish. However - the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie, originally produced by MGM, has not fallen out of copyright, and if songs, images and motifs of the movie are used by someone without the owner's permission, that someone would be liable for copyright violation. Because while MGM didn't create the Wizard of Oz, it created its version of the Wizard of Oz and so it owns that version. In a similar fashion, Disney owns its versions of Snow White, Pooh, Peter Pan and so on. It's all legal and creatively and ethically valid.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I agree the UK pavilion needs more than what it has, but with as rich and lengthy a history as those countries have, it would be a shame to sum up British history with...The Beatles. A Beatles attraction would be akin to adding a Bruce Springsteen attraction in America. He's great and as All-American as they come, but for summing up American history at EPCOT? I just don't see it.



We've yet to even see WHAT Disney is going to do with the Marvel characters, or even if they're going to have any presence in the parks. So there's no way to know what amount of adaptation or "Disney-fication" might happen.

Nothing I've suggested was intended to short-change OR dismiss Disney's talents, either past or future; I was only pointing out that Disney's history is filled with properties not wholly original, and when you start criticizing some without even recognizing all the others in the past it makes the bias stand out pretty clearly.

The Muppets, Marvel, and even Pixar get a lot of bad press because they're the most recent add-ins, but a whole lot of other characters seem to get a pass because they've been around long enough that for those young enough to have grown up with them they already seem a part of Disney.

And while that list is pretty long and constantly growing, the strong majority of these characters and properties seem to end up going directly to Hollywood Studios, and because I have enough faith that Disney knows they can't just "shoehorn" certain things into the Magic Kingdom, I don't think it's necessary to dismiss these new characters before we've even seen HOW they might be incorporated into the parks, if at all.

I said that the Beatles are Britain's most famous export, NOT that they summed up all of British history. If I gave that impression, I apologize. Jeez, I suggest adding a fun ride to the British section of Epcot and some here go nuts. Go figure.

And once again, you're ignoring the fact that other characters Disney has purchased the rights to (as opposed to owning them outright) were interpreted in the Disney style and thus a version of them was created that is wholly Disney's. To the public, the characters seem to be Disney's because in a very real sense they ARE Disney's. The passage of time has nothing to do with it; the public thinks those characters are Disney's because Disney put so much of its own creativity and craft into them. And that is very different, by the way, from merely buying some foreign entity and, with no attempt to create a Disney version, simply inserting them into the parks, advertising, etc. It's jarring to say the least and, to my mind, crass and creatively bankrupt. Worse, it violates the spirit of Walt's legacy. It's a base corporate move and nothing more.

You may be right about awaiting what the current Disney suits have in mind before condemning the purchases. But it's hard to believe that seeing Spiderman in Disneyland will ever feel okay. The younger generation may have no problem with it...but if that happens, I fear it means that the original Disney identity will be lost forever. And that will be a terrible loss indeed.

 

[misterID]

Like Imagination, I won`t believe anything anymore until something is visibly happening. There has been more false starts than the M:I coaster.

There again I`ll have a quick look myself this Saturday evening

So, it's a possibility? The fact that there have been false starts is a good sign though. At least it's almost happened a few times...

 

[Thrill Seeker]

Actually, Disney is remaking the film with help from Imagemovers (Animation studio behind A Christmas Carol) so maybe it could happen after all...