News Big changes coming to EPCOT's Future World?

[brb1006]

At least Tokyo Disneysea knows how to use and blend in IP and use it properly.

 

[MCast]

They couldn't get a sponsor.

Do they need a sponsor now? Al Roker would be a PERFECT pre-show narrator for any potential weather-related ride. God, I'd love to brainstorm with Imagineers.

 

[FigmentJedi]

At least Tokyo Disneysea knows how to use and blend in IP and use it properly.

In light of the Nemo addition, I'm inclined to disagree. It's just weird on both ends: The cartoon fish don't really work well with the Port Discovery concept and the ride concept of a Submarine shaped like an adorable fish capable of shrinking is the last thing you would expect something like the Marine Life Institute to have. It's just too wacky and nonsensical for the world of the Finding Nemo films. Even worse then the Submarine Voyage's "Submarine gets eaten by a whale so we can throw in whale language memberberries before we get to unload".

 

[brb1006]

In light of the Nemo addition, I'm inclined to disagree. It's just weird on both ends: The cartoon fish don't really work well with the Port Discovery concept and the ride concept of a Submarine shaped like an adorable fish capable of shrinking is the last thing you would expect something like the Marine Life Institute to have. It's just too wacky and nonsensical for the world of the Finding Nemo films. Even worse then the Submarine Voyage's "Submarine gets eaten by a whale so we can throw in whale language memberberries before we get to unload".

Well at least it worked for the Genie and Big Band Beat shows.

 

[marni1971]

They used the Tron shots, but they didn't call them out like "let's now visit the world of Tron!"..

Unlike Disneyland.

 

[doctornick]

Is there some law that says the replacement for the energy pavilion has to be about energy?

Yeah. I'm all for emphasizing that any new attraction needs to fit the theme of the land it is in, but there's nothing that says there has to be an "energy" pavilion in Future World. If they come up with some other concept that actually fits the park, that's fine.

 

[matt9112]

If they are still talking about energy in the energy pavilion, what difference does it make if they use Bill Nye and dinosaurs, or GotG to tell the story?

Is Nemo still teaching you all about the ocean? Not really.

 

[matt9112]

Whatever will sell the most merchandise in the gift shop is the law.....

Pretty much this....

 

[ToTBellHop]

Is Nemo still teaching you all about the ocean? Not really.

Sure he is. Ever looked around the fish exhibits? That's an appropriate use of IP, to me. The ride is less-so.

 

[DisneyJayL]

Sure he is. Ever looked around the fish exhibits? That's an appropriate use of IP, to me. The ride is less-so.

Exactly. Taking time to look around surely educated me on things, kids too. Nemo surely helped.

 

[marni1971]

Exactly. Taking time to look around surely educated me on things, kids too. Nemo surely helped.

I preferred Comander Fulton. But I'm old school.

 

[matt9112]

Sure he is. Ever looked around the fish exhibits? That's an appropriate use of IP, to me. The ride is less-so.

All of that existed before....the ride teaches you nothing....if your saying Nemo convinced you to visit an aquarium? Than I have nothing to say.

 

[RobidaFlats]

Sure he is. Ever looked around the fish exhibits? That's an appropriate use of IP, to me. The ride is less-so.

I've written about this elsewhere, but my issue with this type of IP use is that while it might be educational, it's a very different kind of education than what was previously there.

I like to view EPCOT Center as "inspirational education" if you will. It showed things that could be if we set our minds to it. It inspired us to learn, not just because something is neat, but because that knowledge could improve the future.

A talking cartoon fish is neat and he might convince me to learn a little something about his "world", but he can't inspire me to create and live in a world where Nemo is real. He is pure fiction and fantasy, not science-fiction, futuristic fiction or anything else. If I learn anything, it is because the cartoon was somewhat interesting and fed me some facts. If I visit a fictional seabase, I am prompted to learn not just about what the seabase is studying, but also how it came to be, the challenges it overcame and the technology necessary to make it happen. That inspires me to keep learning so that maybe one day we can live in a world with real-life seabases.

When I get home from Nemo and Friends, I might want to go to an aquarium to see more fish.

When I got home from The Living Seas, I went to the library to learn about oceanography and engineering.

Neither is wrong, but they are very different. One might inspire us to see the world, the other can inspire us to improve it. Optimism is what sets EPCOT Center apart from today's Epcot. Today is about fantasy and (to some degree) escapism from the problems of the world. EPCOT Center was about facing and overcoming those problems.

 

[marni1971]

I've written about this elsewhere, but my issue with this type of IP use is that while it might be educational, it's a very different kind of education than what was previously there.

I like to view EPCOT Center as "inspirational education" if you will. It showed things that could be if we set our minds to it. It inspired us to learn, not just because something is neat, but because that knowledge could improve the future.

A talking cartoon fish is neat and he might convince me to learn a little something about his "world", but he can't inspire me to create and live in a world where Nemo is real. He is pure fiction and fantasy, not science-fiction, futuristic fiction or anything else. If I learn anything, it is because the cartoon was somewhat interesting and fed me some facts. If I visit a fictional seabase, I am prompted to learn not just about what the seabase is studying, but also how it came to be, the challenges it overcame and the technology necessary to make it happen. That inspires me to keep learning so that maybe one day we can live in a world with real-life seabases.

When I get home from Nemo and Friends, I might want to go to an aquarium to see more fish.

When I got home from The Living Seas, I went to the library to learn about oceanography and engineering.

Neither is wrong, but they are very different. One might inspire us to see the world, the other can inspire us to improve it. Optimism is what sets EPCOT Center apart from today's Epcot. Today is about fantasy and (to some degree) escapism from the problems of the world. EPCOT Center was about facing and overcoming those problems.

Wow.

Bravo.

 

[Herbie]

Right now JIIWF is deemed acceptable. Energy is not. The building needs major work, there's major ride system and show issues, and the image of Ellen isn't..... deemed 2017.

I would just LOVE to see them try to keep it open by 2025..

 

[DisneyJayL]

I preferred Comander Fulton. But I'm old school.

Don't know him, but to me if it educating in the right way who really cares. I love the IP Disney has so why not use it. I guess I'm not as nostalgic as everyone. I'm 37 so I guess that technically "young."

 

[HMF]

Sure he is. Ever looked around the fish exhibits? That's an appropriate use of IP, to me. The ride is less-so.

Exactly, I would be fine with some Finding Nemo elements in The Living Seas if they had not completely invaded the pavilion with it.

 

[P_Radden]

Exactly, I would be find with some Finding Nemo elements in The Living Seas if they had not completely invaded the pavilion with it.

I agree. Honestly the only thing I like about the Nemo overlay is the seagulls out front saying "mine mine"

 

[RoysCabin]

Corporate syngergy. Iger and Chapek are determined to get as much popular or current IP into the parks as possible to attempt to make those who ride it buy the DVD, those who buy the DVD to want to make a trip to the parks. Very shortsighted IMHO but what do I know.

"Shortsighted" is an excellent choice of words in this situation, in my opinion. The era of modern corporate thinking emphasizes the next two quarterly reports and very little else, which is great for immediate profit maximization and poisonous for longterm planning.

Worse, in the context of themed design and entertainment, it tries to force a square peg into a round hole. Movie/TV/book properties are not the same as theme park attractions; they can exist in a sort of aether of people's minds and popular recollection, waxing and waning in terms of popularity and current "hotness" depending on various factors, while a theme park attraction has to seek to remain consistently popular over the course of its likely 10-20 year lifespan.

Take the Disney take on Beauty and the Beast as an example: it's a film that has remained popular over the course of 25+ years, but that popularity hasn't always been on the same levels. It was obviously a big hit in the early 90s, but then it might fade back a bit, give way to a new film that gets more attention, before coming back when there's a new VHS/DVD/whatever edition released, or a limited run in theaters, the upcoming live-action remake, or anything along those lines. As a singular film it has that luxury; it can remain fondly recollected by the public, but does not need to consistently maintain a steady, unwavering level of popularity on a year-in, year-out basis.

Theme park attractions must take a different tact, as a ride that's built and designed in 2017 is likely meant to still be standing and operating when the calendar flips to, say, 2030, and over those 13 or so years it's important that the ride maintain a fairly steady level of popularity, given the fact that it is a physical show idea that takes up space and may require things like new construction, specially trained staff, and constant maintenance, something that's not required of a completed film, book, or television series. When corporate attempts to shoehorn these movie/TV/book concepts into a medium that has entirely different parameters around it, it does both forms a disservice; a great film is not well served by a rushed theme park attraction, and themed design is not well served trying to prop up the popularity of a property that, by its very nature, will go through waves of popularity and pop cultural consciousness, which likely impacts the ride's overall popularity.

Blah, I'm rambling, but these are the discussions that drive home that keeping WED separate from corporate was likely for the best in terms of the construction of the Disney parks.

And yeah, @RobidaFlats, very, very well said on the original goal and purpose of EPCOT Center and how it contrasts with what we're discussing here.

 

[rushtest4echo]

"Shortsighted" is an excellent choice of words in this situation, in my opinion. The era of modern corporate thinking emphasizes the next two quarterly reports and very little else, which is great for immediate profit maximization and poisonous for longterm planning.

Worse, in the context of themed design and entertainment, it tries to force a square peg into a round hole. Movie/TV/book properties are not the same as theme park attractions; they can exist in a sort of aether of people's minds and popular recollection, waxing and waning in terms of popularity and current "hotness" depending on various factors, while a theme park attraction has to seek to remain consistently popular over the course of its likely 10-20 year lifespan.

Take the Disney take on Beauty and the Beast as an example: it's a film that has remained popular over the course of 25+ years, but that popularity hasn't always been on the same levels. It was obviously a big hit in the early 90s, but then it might fade back a bit, give way to a new film that gets more attention, before coming back when there's a new VHS/DVD/whatever edition released, or a limited run in theaters, the upcoming live-action remake, or anything along those lines. As a singular film it has that luxury; it can remain fondly recollected by the public, but does not need to consistently maintain a steady, unwavering level of popularity on a year-in, year-out basis.

Theme park attractions must take a different tact, as a ride that's built and designed in 2017 is likely meant to still be standing and operating when the calendar flips to, say, 2030, and over those 13 or so years it's important that the ride maintain a fairly steady level of popularity, given the fact that it is a physical show idea that takes up space and may require things like new construction, specially trained staff, and constant maintenance, something that's not required of a completed film, book, or television series. When corporate attempts to shoehorn these movie/TV/book concepts into a medium that has entirely different parameters around it, it does both forms a disservice; a great film is not well served by a rushed theme park attraction, and themed design is not well served trying to prop up the popularity of a property that, by its very nature, will go through waves of popularity and pop cultural consciousness, which likely impacts the ride's overall popularity.

Blah, I'm rambling, but these are the discussions that drive home that keeping WED separate from corporate was likely for the best in terms of the construction of the Disney parks.

And yeah, @RobidaFlats, very, very well said on the original goal and purpose of EPCOT Center and how it contrasts with what we're discussing here.

I'm so mad that message boards didn't exist in the 1950's/1960's. I'd love to see the musings of "old school" Disney people who would have thrown fits about Walt's corporate synergy ties.

If a Disney message board existed then:

Disneyland TV Series: "I can't believe this corporate synergy BS, they're plugging some theme park here on our family TV night instead of showing us the TV shows, stories and movies that are appopriate for the TV medium".

Sleeping Beauty Castle: "I can't believe this corporate synergy BS, building a castle from a film that won't be released for years". Why not just do Cinderlla since people already know it. In fact, why does it need to be a princess castle at all? Can't it just be a castle without some idiot thinking it needs to sell merch from the princess line or plug a new movie? What is Walt thinking? Creatively bankrupt"

Tomorrowland: "What the hell is this? Corporate sponsorship of the future exhibit land? Budget cuts everywhere- Disney should be embarrassed to have this place open. Re-used movie sets, corporate showcases and no real rides. Yay, a car ride and a motor boat- how futuristic."

Jungle Cruise: "Oh god, what a rip of African Queen. It's not even their own property and they're just shamelessly cashing in on the exotic craze. How shortsighted."

King Arthur's Carousel: "Great, we can't even have a classic European carousel without slapping some IP on it."

Storybookland: "But I liked Canal Boats of the World, it always had a line. Now they've ruined it with stupid IP, what a waste. Never visiting Disneyland ever again, they've sold out."

Sailing Ship Columbia: "A boat of that size and type would never be in ANY river around America, much less the wild west. This is just stupid, it's as bad as putting that Frozen theme on that Norway ride 60 years into the future. The logic just isn't there."

Matterhorn/Skyway: "Oh yay, a wild mouse in a box. No theming, no story, out of place and ugly. It ruins the view of the castle. These architects and WED are idiots with no foresight- this forever alters and destroys the sightlines."

Swiss Family Treehouse: "Wow, a stupid walkthrough with another IP slapped on. How exciting, where's the E-ticket?"

Tiki Room: "Oh god, singing birds on something that's not even a ride. And it's sponsored by an airline company, how shameless. Will Walt ever stop whoring out his attractions to sponsors??? Besides, he stole the whole concept from someone in Europe. Creative bankruptcy for sure."

1964 World's Fair: "OMG Walt is so cheap. He never builds anything without someone else ponying up the dough. Then he has the nerve to move/replicate/clone those rides here to Disneyland. Disney used to care about innovation, now they just mindlessly clone these rides years later and those rubes in the general public lap it up. I can't believe how cheap Walt is. Then he has the audacity to call these all MAPO developed attractions and is hoarding the receipts from them and charging licencing fees- what a corporate stooge. And people defend his actions by saying that he's keeping creative separate from the rest of the park management in order to foster innovation, when he's really just diverting needed revenues and investment away from the park at large in order to fund his pet projects!"

Pirates of the Caribbean: "So for some reason Pirates are in New Orleans and the Caribbean at the same time, next to an antebellum Mansion on one side, the wild west on two other sides and a treehouse on the other- great job theming guys. What a joke."