News Big changes coming to EPCOT's Future World?

Ralphlaw

Well-Known Member
Call me crazy. but the repertoire of IP (Intellectual Property) that Disney has accumulated since the original opening of Epcot is probably pushing the idea that Future World should now starting looking like some of it. Perhaps the greatest example right now is Xandar, home of the Nova Corps from Guardians of the Galaxy. Perhaps we'll even see Glenn Close at the opening. Perhaps the next Guardians movie will have a great big sphere in some city that looks eerily like, well, you know. There's a synergy.

I think Xandar might be considered as close to a Future Utopia as exists in Disney's IPs, and IPs seem to be driving development. Universal, prior to Harry Potter, was a mishmash. But Harry Potter, probably the biggest IP out there right now, took Universal to a whole 'nuther level. Face it: "Come to Epcot to see our vision of the future" is not as exciting for 80% of the population as "Come to Epcot to see the Guardians of the Galaxy and ___________." Don't be surprised if Tomorrowland also starts looking more like its movie, with George Clooney and Hugh Laurie lookalikes wandering around.

I'm assuming Disney sees this as the future. Without IPs, guests don't flood as much, especially new guests. With IPs, lots more people are willing to come to your park. That whole idea harkens back to the original Disneyland. All parks before were a hodgepodge, and had no real themes. Come in, ride the rides, and adults sit on dirty benches while strung out carnies chomp on cigars and ogle your daughters. Walt not only brought safety, cleanliness and impeccable service to Disneyland, he brought the characters. And I would argue that it was the characters (and places from the movies like Sleeping Beauty's Castle and Davy Crocket's outpost) that brought the majority of new visitors. The safety, cleanliness and service kept bringing them back, but the IPs also kept them coming back AND brought in all those new people. It also sold tons of merch that vague themes could not.

Originally, Epcot was to have no characters or connections to any movies or TV shows. Nice idea, but the guest surveys immediately pushed for the characters. Theme dilution started very early. Eventually the character bus started to show up, and Mickey and the gang wore space suits at Mission Space while each country had there own March Hare, Bell, Alladin, Mulan or the rest. Then the Cabelleros and Nemo opened the flood gates even further with their own retreaded attractions. Face it, the original theme for Future World and World showcase has been compromised for a long time. Maybe Big Hero 6 could revitalize Wonders of Life. Maybe some character in some future movie will ride a hang glider and then stand outside Soarin'.

Bottom Line: Many new guests to Orlando would rather see Harry Potter than some vague notion of the Future, so how is Disney to respond? Obviously with its own huge repertoire of IPs. Whether you like it or not, it's coming, just like a Clinton or Trump Presidency. Bemoan it, grumble, and grind your teeth, but face the future with calm strength rather than angry nostalgic hopes.
 

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
Bottom Line: Many new guests to Orlando would rather see Harry Potter than some vague notion of the Future, so how is Disney to respond? Obviously with its own huge repertoire of IPs. Whether you like it or not, it's coming, just like a Clinton or Trump Presidency. Bemoan it, grumble, and grind your teeth, but face the future with calm strength rather than angry nostalgic hopes.

First off, not all people venturing to Disney are just there to see the "vague notion of the future" so I think WDW will still have its fair share of park visitors over Uni. Secondly, what Disney should do is take a long hard look back at what made the original Epcot so special, unique, and flat-out amazing and go that route. This notion that Disney will need to wage a war with Universal over who has the bigger, IP is pretty sad.

I'd also say that even in your election comparison, there are other candidates people can vote for. The problem is, the media only shovels the two main possibilities into our face and I don't think enough people feel confident an "option 3" could win, so they don't give it a fighting chance. Also, likening Epcot's future to a Trump or Clinton presidency...:(:(:(
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
First off, not all people venturing to Disney are just there to see the "vague notion of the future" so I think WDW will still have its fair share of park visitors over Uni. Secondly, what Disney should do is take a long hard look back at what made the original Epcot so special, unique, and flat-out amazing and go that route. This notion that Disney will need to wage a war with Universal over who has the bigger, IP is pretty sad.

I'd also say that even in your election comparison, there are other candidates people can vote for. The problem is, the media only shovels the two main possibilities into our face and I don't think enough people feel confident an "option 3" could win, so they don't give it a fighting chance. Also, likening Epcot's future to a Trump or Clinton presidency...:(:(:(

The problem is that neither 3rd party is all that involved in other levels or other branches. You work from the ground up, not the top down.
 

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
Perhaps, but then you can't really blame the media for that.

Wait...we're still talking about the election right? ;)
I think third parties would be involved if given the opportunity. There's a petition going around online to allow Johnson the ability to join in on a Trump/Clinton debate, so I don't think its a lack of wanting to be involved. I just think the media wants the general public to believe its a two-horse race, when in actuality, there is a third (albeit tiny) horse still running.
 

Ralphlaw

Well-Known Member
First off, not all people venturing to Disney are just there to see the "vague notion of the future" so I think WDW will still have its fair share of park visitors over Uni. Secondly, what Disney should do is take a long hard look back at what made the original Epcot so special, unique, and flat-out amazing and go that route. This notion that Disney will need to wage a war with Universal over who has the bigger, IP is pretty sad.

I'd also say that even in your election comparison, there are other candidates people can vote for. The problem is, the media only shovels the two main possibilities into our face and I don't think enough people feel confident an "option 3" could win, so they don't give it a fighting chance. Also, likening Epcot's future to a Trump or Clinton presidency...:(:(:(

I never said "all" people venturing to Disney. My point, from an advertising standpoint to get new people into the parks, is that Uni currently has a huge new advantage with their Harry Potter IP. My post, I think, clearly says that attracting new people into the parks with a vague notion of the future is far less effective than trying to attract them with a high powered piece of Intellectual Property. Yes, Epcot has lots more visitors than Uni, but inroads are being made. Is that pretty sad? Yeah, but greater use of IPs is apparently the direction that the company appears to be going in, and it is indeed somewhat inevitable from the standpoint of attracting new visitors.

Also, the flat out amazing bit about Epcot was all true, but that paradigm is perceived to not cut it anymore. The positive message of an amazing future won't in and of itself bring in a whole new audience. IPs will, so they think.

If you don't like my presidency comparison, then let's talk baseball. The town I live in used to have about a hundred little league teams and at least 3 American Legion teams. Now we're down to a dozen or so little league teams and one Legion team with another town. Why? Professional baseball is considered too slow and arcane to excite the younger people to play. Plus, it's considered more fitness-provoking to play soccer and basketball and other cardio sports. Similarly, a theme of a bright future like Epcot used to be is, rightly or wrongly, not enough in the 21st century to bring in tons of new visitors. At least that appears the fear. With IPs, I am assuming Disney feels that Epcot will stay current, and remain high on vacationer's radar screens.

Attractions without IPs may be a quaint past way of doing business. The last big purely non-IP attraction they built was Expedition Everest, and I wouldn't be surprised if a movie eventually came out of it eventually. To spend millions on attractions or upgrades, company bigwigs and shareholders want to be as assured as possible that there will be a return on that investment. An IP dramatically enhances that assurance, and also makes the attraction something that can't be duplicated elsewhere. In the cruise industry, Disney's competition attributes Disney Cruise Line's success to having Mickey and the gang onboard. In some respects that's very naïve. However, it's also true in that first time cruisers on DCL come in large part because of the IP theming that other cruise lines don't have. They may return for a host of other reasons, but those IPs get them onboard in the first place.

Times change whether you like them or not, and IPs are a rather inevitable part of that change even though some diehards will bemoan the loss of a purer and more idealistic Future World.
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
Wait...we're still talking about the election right? ;)
I think third parties would be involved if given the opportunity. There's a petition going around online to allow Johnson the ability to join in on a Trump/Clinton debate, so I don't think its a lack of wanting to be involved. I just think the media wants the general public to believe its a two-horse race, when in actuality, there is a third (albeit tiny) horse still running.

And even by some miracle he won, then what? Congress and pretty much all of the state governments are controlled by one of the two major parties.
 

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
I never said "all" people venturing to Disney. My point, from an advertising standpoint to get new people into the parks, is that Uni currently has a huge new advantage with their Harry Potter IP. My post, I think, clearly says that attracting new people into the parks with a vague notion of the future is far less effective than trying to attract them with a high powered piece of Intellectual Property. Yes, Epcot has lots more visitors than Uni, but inroads are being made. Is that pretty sad? Yeah, but greater use of IPs is apparently the direction that the company appears to be going in, and it is indeed somewhat inevitable from the standpoint of attracting new visitors.

Also, the flat out amazing bit about Epcot was all true, but that paradigm is perceived to not cut it anymore. The positive message of an amazing future won't in and of itself bring in a whole new audience. IPs will, so they think.

If you don't like my presidency comparison, then let's talk baseball. The town I live in used to have about a hundred little league teams and at least 3 American Legion teams. Now we're down to a dozen or so little league teams and one Legion team with another town. Why? Professional baseball is considered too slow and arcane to excite the younger people to play. Plus, it's considered more fitness-provoking to play soccer and basketball and other cardio sports. Similarly, a theme of a bright future like Epcot used to be is, rightly or wrongly, not enough in the 21st century to bring in tons of new visitors. At least that appears the fear. With IPs, I am assuming Disney feels that Epcot will stay current, and remain high on vacationer's radar screens.

Attractions without IPs may be a quaint past way of doing business. The last big purely non-IP attraction they built was Expedition Everest, and I wouldn't be surprised if a movie eventually came out of it eventually. To spend millions on attractions or upgrades, company bigwigs and shareholders want to be as assured as possible that there will be a return on that investment. An IP dramatically enhances that assurance, and also makes the attraction something that can't be duplicated elsewhere. In the cruise industry, Disney's competition attributes Disney Cruise Line's success to having Mickey and the gang onboard. In some respects that's very naïve. However, it's also true in that first time cruisers on DCL come in large part because of the IP theming that other cruise lines don't have. They may return for a host of other reasons, but those IPs get them onboard in the first place.

Times change whether you like them or not, and IPs are a rather inevitable part of that change even though some diehards will bemoan the loss of a purer and more idealistic Future World.

I know you didn't say "all" guests, but I still don't agree. You're basically saying that if a family who has never been to Orlando before is planning out their trip they're going to say "Hmmm Universal has a Harry Potter world...and Epcot has that pretty out-dated Epcot Center with no IP's...so, let's just scrap WDW completely and go ride on broomsticks!" Maybe I'm just reading too much into that.

"Times change" is a tired cliche that says you shouldn't fight for something you're passionate about. But this frantic IP-inclusion is a trend that is all about quick gain and fast turnaround. I don't know, but I'd rather take it from Disney Imagineering legend Marty Sklar who said, "remember, the last three letters of trend are E-N-D."
We are seeing the trend of IP-inclusion in Epcot and subsequently the END of the Epcot Center we all loved. Coincidence?

And for the record, I know IP's have been around long before and that using them isn't new per say. But it just seems that the answer to any question now a days is "give it an IP bandaid", and I think that's inherently flawed.
 

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
It's not flawed if you're not using it correctly. If I put ice cream on top of the freezer rather than in it, is the freezer flawed when the ice cream melts.

Well you could argue that is not being used correctly IS its flaw...Bottom line, the whole system needs a re-working. Both in the people involved, AND in how its used....hmmm...kinda like Epcot and management...#fullcircle
 

Mike S

Well-Known Member
First off, not all people venturing to Disney are just there to see the "vague notion of the future" so I think WDW will still have its fair share of park visitors over Uni. Secondly, what Disney should do is take a long hard look back at what made the original Epcot so special, unique, and flat-out amazing and go that route. This notion that Disney will need to wage a war with Universal over who has the bigger, IP is pretty sad.

I'd also say that even in your election comparison, there are other candidates people can vote for. The problem is, the media only shovels the two main possibilities into our face and I don't think enough people feel confident an "option 3" could win, so they don't give it a fighting chance. Also, likening Epcot's future to a Trump or Clinton presidency...:(:(:(
The last big IP left that's unclaimed is LotR. Going after Uni in an IP war is not the path they should take.
The last big purely non-IP attraction they built was Expedition Everest, and I wouldn't be surprised if a movie eventually came out of it eventually.
I'd love a found footage style movie of a lost expedition but it would be way too scary for the kiddies the way I envision it. Oh well.
 

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
The last big IP left that's unclaimed is LotR. Going after Uni in an IP war is not the path they should take.

I'd love a found footage style movie of a lost expedition but it would be way too scary for the kiddies the way I envision it. Oh well.

You mean someone is not capitalizing on the opportunity to build a real-life Middle Earth, Mordor, and _________ (insert third LotR relevant land)...come on people!
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
Well you could argue that is not being used correctly IS its flaw...Bottom line, the whole system needs a re-working. Both in the people involved, AND in how its used....hmmm...kinda like Epcot and management...#fullcircle

Let me use another analogy then. Remember Mike Tyson's Punch-Out? Of course you do, that game was great. Anyway, there was a code that allowed you to skip all the way to end and fight Mike. You would invariably lose. Why? Because you're jumping straight up to the end without mastering the skills of blocking and dodging. You need to slog through Glass Joe and King Hippo and Piston Honda.

So it is with the Libertarians and the Green Party. Running for President is the boss stage of politics. And they're getting beat because they haven't gone through the Glass Joes of school board elections, Von Kaisers of city councils, King Hippos of state legislatures, and Soda Popinskis of the House of Representatives.
 

Ralphlaw

Well-Known Member
I know you didn't say "all" guests, but I still don't agree. You're basically saying that if a family who has never been to Orlando before is planning out their trip they're going to say "Hmmm Universal has a Harry Potter world...and Epcot has that pretty out-dated Epcot Center with no IP's...so, let's just scrap WDW completely and go ride on broomsticks!" Maybe I'm just reading too much into that..

IPs, rightly or wrongly, are an additional mode of assurance in the current era to justify a large expenditure. When we first went to Disney, it was "To see Mickey." We had done our research, watched the videos, and knew there was much more. But Mickey got us there because my 4 year old son was so excited to see him and also to do that other stuff, whatever it was.

My daughter on our next trip wants to also head over to Uni to see the Harry Potter stuff. She doesn't know if anything else is there, and I must admit that I don't have a desire to see anything else there either. Once I'm there, I'm sure there will be other stuff that I like. But none of that other stuff is going to get me to go there and buy a ticket to get in. Disney is likely thinking that a lack of IPs will squelch the demand that people had to come and see Epcot. With IPs, new guests will be lured in who wouldn't be lured in without IP branded attractions. They are likely concerned that an unbranded world of the future abutting a bunch of international pavilions is not sound-bitey enough to continue the flow of new-dedicated guests who will come, spend money, and come back again and again.

I agree that an IP-less Epcot was great, and the lack of characters was a refreshing break. I think a non-IPed Epcot is superior in many ways to having a bunch of characters ala Magic Kingdom. I also think that IP overload should be a concern. You can only take so much Mickey and Donald. I really like the fact that my resort room is not flooded with overt character images and voices all over the place. Yet, slapping IPs on stuff is a way to satisfy that kneejerk urge to associate a place with a great story or movie. Sadly, that's the direction that Epcot is taking, and our quick association with an IP and a park is the human nature reason that it's likely happening. That's today's Marketing, 101.
 

Ralphlaw

Well-Known Member
You mean someone is not capitalizing on the opportunity to build a real-life Middle Earth, Mordor, and _________ (insert third LotR relevant land)...come on people!

I would love a Lord of the Rings land, attractions and characters. Hobbiton, Minas Tirith, Lothlorien, Rivendell, dinner in the House of Elrond, a Battle of Pelinor Fields attraction, a parade with catapults, Nazgul, dragons, and wizards. I don't care where it is or what else is there, I want to go.

And that's probably the point.

By the way, as understand it, the reason no theme park has it is because the heirs of Tolkien can't agree on what to do, or even who owns it all, apparently. Just wait. It's bound to happen. Eventually. And I will be there, completely oblivious to what else that park my offer when I plunk down my money to get in.

And, again, that's probably the point.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom