News Big changes coming to EPCOT's Future World?

[Ralphlaw]

Ok you keep missing the point entirely. The rides of then, if they had been properly updated it would have been amazing. You are assuming that somehow the only thing young people want is thrill rides and that is not accurate. Many of the hardest EPCOT Center fans were children when it opened. The kids were never bored because everything was inspiring and amazing. They could do that again but no lets just build big rides cause that's all the young ones care about.

I disagree. No matter how inspiring and amazing those attractions would have been, the image of Future World as a glorified science fair would have turned off many potential guests. The mix is the thing. If Magic Kingdom suddenly became Princess Kingdom, it wouldn't lure in many people with Y chromosomes. Sure, Dads with their little princesses, a few teenage boys with too many hormones, a few pervs, and a few of the more effeminate would bop in. But the vast majority of boys and men would stay away.

Similarly, Future World had to attract people who weren't turned on by science and tech. Again, "Fine, Dad, I'll go to Epcot, but only if we fastpass Test Track" is the sort of thing that many parents and group leaders hear. It's naïve to think otherwise.

Also, it was never seriously considered to turn SE into a roller coaster. From what I heard, the stresses would have been too much. Anchoring would have been a huge problem. Nevertheless, the fact that Epcot's iconic postcard attraction was considered for thrill ride transformation is an apt example of how desperately Disney was pushing for thrill rides. Rightly or wrongly, that was the perceived need.

Today, Epcot is the 3rd highest attended theme park in the US, in large part because of its mix. It's right behind two other greatly mixed parks: MK and Disneyland. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[rnese]

Perhaps, but then you can't really blame the media for that.

I TOTALLY blame the media. They have a love affair with certain people...all because of a letter after their name.

 

[rnese]

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.

While we're discussing politics, the cure for this would be to increase the number of Representatives in the House. If it were to double as an example, the districts would be a lot smaller, thus bringing them "closer" to their electorate. That, and limit the amount of time Representatives are actually allowed in DC. They should be in their district much, much more often!

How does this tie in to Disney? Perhaps the "Big Wigs" should spend more time in the parks, observing and listening to the people and CM's. Kinda like "Undercover Boss".

 

[bhg469]

I disagree. No matter how inspiring and amazing those attractions would have been, the image of Future World as a glorified science fair would have turned off many potential guests. The mix is the thing. If Magic Kingdom suddenly became Princess Kingdom, it wouldn't lure in many people with Y chromosomes. Sure, Dads with their little princesses, a few teenage boys with too many hormones, a few pervs, and a few of the more effeminate would bop in. But the vast majority of boys and men would stay away.

Similarly, Future World had to attract people who weren't turned on by science and tech. Again, "Fine, Dad, I'll go to Epcot, but only if we fastpass Test Track" is the sort of thing that many parents and group leaders hear. It's naïve to think otherwise.

Also, it was never seriously considered to turn SE into a roller coaster. From what I heard, the stresses would have been too much. Anchoring would have been a huge problem. Nevertheless, the fact that Epcot's iconic postcard attraction was considered for thrill ride transformation is an apt example of how desperately Disney was pushing for thrill rides. Rightly or wrongly, that was the perceived need.

Today, Epcot is the 3rd highest attended theme park in the US, in large part because of its mix. It's right behind two other greatly mixed parks: MK and Disneyland. Coincidence? I think not.

Epcot has the attendance it does because it is epcot.. The second theme park in the vacation capitol of the country. Its attendance will be influenced more by additions to MK than it will additions to itself. I get you have an opinion here and I respect that but your love for thrill rides is clearly clouding your judgement. Disney will never have the best thrill rides in the world. They will never ever attempt to build a hyper coaster. They will never have the fastest, highest, most airtime attraction. They have the resources to build the coaster to kill all coasters, but they never will for a very good reason. They build highly themed attractions first and foremost.

 

[Ralphlaw]

No one takes this "opinion" seriously because you're presenting it as a fact. We get it, you hate what EPCOT originally stood for. This stupid "80s Epcot was dull and boring" is such a tired argument. Matter of fact, you literally have no reason to speak on the subject at all since you admitted to never even riding ANY of the attractions in this debate. So please, go spread you uneducated drivel to someone who cares. You'd make a fine Disney executive with this train of thought. /rant

Epcot has the attendance it does because it is epcot.. The second theme park in the vacation capitol of the country. Its attendance will be influenced more by additions to MK than it will additions to itself. I get you have an opinion here and I respect that but your love for thrill rides is clearly clouding your judgement. Disney will never have the best thrill rides in the world. They will never ever attempt to build a hyper coaster. They will never have the fastest, highest, most airtime attraction. They have the resources to build the coaster to kill all coasters, but they never will for a very good reason. They build highly themed attractions first and foremost.

Uh, a few points of clarification:

1. I am not a big lover of thrill rides. I explained that yesterday. I am a lover of acknowledging reality as opposed to some naïve fantasy.

2. I never saw Epcot in the 80s or early 90s, but I probably would have loved it back then. I said that yesterday as well. My point is that the original science fair paradigm of Future World would not likely hold up into the 21st century. Feel free to disagree, but I again feel that dealing with reality is healthier than dealing with rose colored nostalgia.

3. I don't see anyone seriously disagreeing with my assertion that a mix of thrills and edutainment is a good recipe for a successful theme park in today's world. Feel free to lambast me for this opinion, but it seems to be borne out by reality, including attendance numbers.

That's it.

 

[FigmentForver96]

Again, all your silly opinion which is not based on any facts. As more informed and intelligent people have showed you in this very thread, the concept of a "science fair Future World" would have held up just fine if it had been given the treatment it deserved. I know EPCOT of yesteryear was never for the simple minded. It took a special kind of person to truly appreciate is splendor.

I just gave up. They obviously won't understand the point and they do not want to. It's almost insulting to believe that they would simply think the young cool people just want fast thrills and big action. It's also sad to think Disney would have to pander to the hip crown in order to stay relavent when they have never needed to do that. But whatever I'm done.

 

[Phicinfan]

Again, all your silly opinion which is not based on any facts. As more informed and intelligent people have showed you in this very thread, the concept of a "science fair Future World" would have held up just fine if it had been given the treatment it deserved. I know EPCOT of yesteryear was never for the simple minded. It took a special kind of person to truly appreciate is splendor.

I will respectfully disagree with you here, I have lived through the multiple changes in Epcot, and I fully agree with Ralph that the concept has to change. The focus of technology now, and how integrated it already is changes that focus. I think you can have an incredibly enjoyable FW if you do some of both. You have to have some thrill, and some entertainment, but it can be tied into some education and enhancement that will satisfy all. Had Epcot remained as it is, it would have become stale, and outdated...wait...like it already is. You also miss out on the fact that Epcot gets draw more from its events, than it really does from its attractions. I also don't agree you are more educated in those times, nor your opinion(which is all it really is) is more educated than mine or his.

 

[Phicinfan]

Uh, a few points of clarification:

1. I am not a big lover of thrill rides. I explained that yesterday. I am a lover of acknowledging reality as opposed to some naïve fantasy.

2. I never saw Epcot in the 80s or early 90s, but I probably would have loved it back then. I said that yesterday as well. My point is that the original science fair paradigm of Future World would not likely hold up into the 21st century. Feel free to disagree, but I again feel that dealing with reality is healthier than dealing with rose colored nostalgia.

3. I don't see anyone seriously disagreeing with my assertion that a mix of thrills and edutainment is a good recipe for a successful theme park in today's world. Feel free to lambast me for this opinion, but it seems to be borne out by reality, including attendance numbers.

That's it.

Bravo!

 

[Phicinfan]

I just gave up. They obviously won't understand the point and they do not want to. It's almost insulting to believe that they would simply think the young cool people just want fast thrills and big action. It's also sad to think Disney would have to pander to the hip crown in order to stay relavent when they have never needed to do that. But whatever I'm done.

Perhaps you should read closer. No one wants only thrill rides. No one. If I want thrill rides only, I will go to Busch Gardens or some such.

What is missed is there can be, and should be a mix of thrill, entertainment and I feel possible education, to draw all, not just the curious few. Again, Epcot isn't the Epcot of old, it is stale and needs to be updated and EMBRACE technology as life has, and then enhance it and jolt the folks to come partake of it.

 

[Phicinfan]

Literally no one has said that every single minuscule detail should have stayed the same, nor that every single ride should continue to be relics from the 80s. But, thanks so much for completely missing the entire point. As usual.

Oh, and you so elegantly made that point clear.......yeah right.

 

[Ralphlaw]

Again, all your silly opinion which is not based on any facts. As more informed and intelligent people have showed you in this very thread, the concept of a "science fair Future World" would have held up just fine if it had been given the treatment it deserved. I know EPCOT of yesteryear was never for the simple minded. It took a special kind of person to truly appreciate is splendor.

Silly? That's harsh. So no one who wasn't around in the 80s and 90s can have an informed opinion? I guess that means no one today can have an informed opinion about anything that has happened in the world more recently than the 1920s or so.

Anyhow, if Future World is to have as it's primary target audience a "special kind of person", then you will not have many potential guests to draw from. Again, that's like limiting Magic Kingdom to Princess Kingdom. A park, to be successful and to get a return on the billions invested in it, would not want to limit it's potential guest base to a special group of people. On the contrary, you'd want to try to reach a broad base of people who are willing to pay $100 to get in.

 

[rnese]

I see you don't like slow moving attractions and you didn't take the time to read the post about Horizons. You are judging something you have never seen. So your opinion is less than credible in my book.
You like thrill rides and hate dark rides I get it. I think you might have more fun at Universal.
Walt Disney wanted rides that the whole family could ride together, like Pirates and HM. Epcot Center rides went along with that idea and educated along the way.

Do you even like any ride at WDW? If so which ones?

These types of slow moving rides where you "look at stuff" was PRECISELY why I loved EPCOT.........CENTER....as a young child.
It was different than anything else I had ever experienced. Even different than MK. No spinners. No coasters. No thrills. Just VISUAL stimulation. And us guys LOVE visual simulation! You know what I'm talking about fellas! Can I get some props???? (Where's the "Gimme a high five" smiley emoji?)

 

[CanadianGordon]

I read an interesting article on Theme Park University that actually sums up the problem with Epcot that it's had from the beginning.
The lack of the Pavilions being paid for by the respective governments. IPS make a pavilion look more useful ultimately, we as die hard Disney fans may not like it, but sadly money speaks volumes these days.
We can only hope that the right IP goes in place.

 

[rnese]

This analogy makes no sense. If you are going to see YOUR FAVORITE BAND, then you should pretty darn well be aware that they play ballad tunes. Its one thing for a fast rock band to suddenly pull an acoustic night stunt and throw you for a loop, but this is not that. I would hope you're not setting foot at your favorite band's concert for the first time only to then discover that they're going to play slow ballads for you.

I never went to an Air Supply concert expecting to bang my head!
I went because they sing like angels. When I listen to them, I feel like I'm hovering above my body...watching myself listen to them. It's glorious!

 

[rnese]

Again, all your silly opinion which is not based on any facts. As more informed and intelligent people have showed you in this very thread, the concept of a "science fair Future World" would have held up just fine if it had been given the treatment it deserved. I know EPCOT of yesteryear was never for the simple minded. It took a special kind of person to truly appreciate is splendor.

I'm going to use the music analogy again. Changing EPCOT.........CENTER...........into an IP/Thrill ride DHS wanna be is akin to Air Supply, the greatest adult contemporary band of the 20th and 21st centuries, putting out a hip hop album because that's what plays today.
To the billions and billions of hard core Air Supply fans world wide that would be absolutely OUTRAGEOUS!
OUTRAGEOUS I tell you!

That is precisely what is taking place at EPCOT..........CENTER..........and It is making me angry.

 

[Matt_Black]

I never went to an Air Supply concert expecting to bang my head!
I went because they sing like angels. When I listen to them, I feel like I'm hovering above my body...watching myself listen to them. It's glorious!

Some people might. My mother once confused Air Supply with Aerosmith.

 

[Phicinfan]

I don't think I took credit for anything, just piggybacking off what others had brought up before. Now please go back to Mars and plan your continually failing attempts at destroying Earth Marvin.

So you admit you have no expertise, but yet you feel free to insult others on theirs? Seriously? I begin to question who has, and who has not a really informed opinion....

 

[Brenthodge]

You really are quite rude and demeaning with you condescending tone.

Again, all your silly opinion which is not based on any facts. As more informed and intelligent people have showed you in this very thread, the concept of a "science fair Future World" would have held up just fine if it had been given the treatment it deserved. I know EPCOT of yesteryear was never for the simple minded. It took a special kind of person to truly appreciate is splendor.

vreally are

 

[raymusiccity]

I disagree. No matter how inspiring and amazing those attractions would have been, the image of Future World as a glorified science fair would have turned off many potential guests. The mix is the thing. If Magic Kingdom suddenly became Princess Kingdom, it wouldn't lure in many people with Y chromosomes. Sure, Dads with their little princesses, a few teenage boys with too many hormones, a few pervs, and a few of the more effeminate would bop in. But the vast majority of boys and men would stay away.

Similarly, Future World had to attract people who weren't turned on by science and tech. Again, "Fine, Dad, I'll go to Epcot, but only if we fastpass Test Track" is the sort of thing that many parents and group leaders hear. It's naïve to think otherwise.

Also, it was never seriously considered to turn SE into a roller coaster. From what I heard, the stresses would have been too much. Anchoring would have been a huge problem. Nevertheless, the fact that Epcot's iconic postcard attraction was considered for thrill ride transformation is an apt example of how desperately Disney was pushing for thrill rides. Rightly or wrongly, that was the perceived need.

Today, Epcot is the 3rd highest attended theme park in the US, in large part because of its mix. It's right behind two other greatly mixed parks: MK and Disneyland. Coincidence? I think not.

I think it's a little misleading to give EPCOT credit for being ranked number 3 due to their rides or exhibits. They've scored a huge attendance boost thanks to their brilliant incorporation of Food & Wine, as well as Flower & Garden themes. Neither of which have anything to do with rides or expansion pads.

 

[britain]

Curious, but did that classmate go on to pursue a career in science, technology, or the arts? If not, maybe those topics weren't his or her cup of tea, therefore making EPCOT Center as uninspiring as a local museum or gallery.

I don't know what happened to the guy. He did not seem to be inclined to like the same things as myself.