News Big changes coming to EPCOT's Future World?

Otterhead

Well-Known Member
Hell no. The last thing we need is another attraction where the Movie Character Master Race lords itself over the Original Theme Park Character Peasantry. Executives keep thinking that's a "Having your cake and eating it too" deal for fans, but it's not. Just look at Tiki Room Under New Management, Haunted Mansion Holiday or the Jack Sparrow version of Pirates. Reducing Epcot's icons even further to "You are boring Tiki Birds, I'm a big cele-birdy" is just another slap to the face.
Happily, the insulting Under New Management is long gone, and good riddance. While I prefer the original, the HM Holiday is a smart use of a much-loved property to do a seasonal overlay, and unlike some, I've got no problem with the organic way Jack Sparrow was added into Pirates, especially as POTC is known as one of the most successful movie serials of all time more than as a theme park ride, these days.
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
Happily, the insulting Under New Management is long gone, and good riddance. While I prefer the original, the HM Holiday is a smart use of a much-loved property to do a seasonal overlay, and unlike some, I've got no problem with the organic way Jack Sparrow was added into Pirates, especially as POTC is known as one of the most successful movie serials of all time more than as a theme park ride, these days.
It's not organically integrated when you rewrite half the dialogue so you have characters that won't shut the hell up about how they must find Captain Jack Sparrow for some arbitrary reason and only ever refer to him on that full name basis even though one of the series's biggest running gags is nobody respects him and he has to keep correcting people.
Or how the waterfall projections keep telling you about how they are Blackbeard and Davy Jones.
It's like Mushu suddenly became an Imagineering showwriter
43941abea7acf01bfd80f5e928d0a9de.jpg
 

Monorail_Red_77

Well-Known Member
Hell no. The last thing we need is another attraction where the Movie Character Master Race lords itself over the Original Theme Park Character Peasantry. Executives keep thinking that's a "Having your cake and eating it too" deal for fans, but it's not. Just look at Tiki Room Under New Management, Haunted Mansion Holiday or the Jack Sparrow version of Pirates. Reducing Epcot's icons even further to "You are boring Tiki Birds, I'm a big cele-birdy" is just another slap to the face.

I get what you are saying. My only point is that I'd rather as a possible worst case for it to be a mix. Better than abandoned in plain sight.
In it's current version it's ok. But that's just me.
 

Horizons '83

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
I'd still be fine with Bill hosting a new version though. Especially with how much he's been pushing for alternative energy sources in the face of climate change recently.
Bill is a sellout.. He has been bought by Monsanto (once he was bought by Monsanto he reversed his position on GMO's) so I am ready for his butt to leave UOE.

I really think they could create a fantastic attraction in that space, while still preserving the Energy theme.
 

Horizons '83

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Not sure why Bill Nye's opinion on GMOs has anything to do with his public image as a leading proponent of responsible energy, but uh, okay.
What I am saying is that I don't believe he should be the face of anything...he is no longer a credible scientist/fake scientist IMO
 

raven

Well-Known Member
Gemini project.....oh, wait :cautious:

True, and if they happen to google the words Epcot and Manifesto, they might run into a few more ideas...

Same thing if you Google "Epcot Fiasco" :p

Here's the underlying issue with Future World that's been a problem from the start. Once they decide what they are putting there, design it, redesign it, redesign it again, throw it out, pull it back and redesign it again, technology passes up what they've achieved withing a small window of time. It is no longer "future." They are locked into that scenario simply by calling it Future World.
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
Bill is a sellout.. He has been bought by Monsanto (once he was bought by Monsanto he reversed his position on GMO's) so I am ready for his butt to leave UOE.

I really think they could create a fantastic attraction in that space, while still preserving the Energy theme.
Changing a scientifically refutable opinion based on evidence makes one a sell out now?
 

prberk

Well-Known Member
Bill is a sellout.. He has been bought by Monsanto (once he was bought by Monsanto he reversed his position on GMO's) so I am ready for his butt to leave UOE.

I really think they could create a fantastic attraction in that space, while still preserving the Energy theme.

Monsanto, by the way, was an original sponsor for WDW.

They presented "Mission to Mars" in Tomorrowland, if I remember right. (That space eventually became Alien Encounter then Stitch's Great Escape, using the same seating pattern.)
 

chiefs11

Well-Known Member
Get ready for the Good Dinosaur overlay of UoE!

Watch scenes from the movie and travel back in time to see the dinosaurs themselves!

:p
 

Horizons '83

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Changing a scientifically refutable opinion based on evidence makes one a sell out now?
Not sure what you are implying...

Bill was wholeheartedly against all GMO's, Monsanto padded his wallet to reverse his option, so he is no Pro-GMO which in my view is irresponsible.
 

sshindel

The Epcot Manifesto
Gemini project.....oh, wait :cautious:



Same thing if you Google "Epcot Fiasco" :p

Here's the underlying issue with Future World that's been a problem from the start. Once they decide what they are putting there, design it, redesign it, redesign it again, throw it out, pull it back and redesign it again, technology passes up what they've achieved withing a small window of time. It is no longer "future." They are locked into that scenario simply by calling it Future World.
But, and I know I've mentioned this before, that was the whole point. The original designers talked about need for constant reinvention, constant updates.
And I know I've mentioned this before as well, but the things that needed updating so far were small. Last I checked we still do not have seabases, space colonies, desert lorange farms. The overall large brush strokes of Future World were as futuristic yesterday as they are today. The small things might have needed to be updated, the clothing, a small technology here or there, but the idea of looking towards the future is still futuristic, 33 years later.
 

Horizons '83

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Monsanto, by the way, was an original sponsor for WDW.

They presented "Mission to Mars" in Tomorrowland, if I remember right. (That space eventually became Alien Encounter then Stitch's Great Escape, using the same seating pattern.)
Yes, I think it was for Adventure Thru Inner Space in Disneyland if I am not mistaken.
 

sshindel

The Epcot Manifesto
Changing a scientifically refutable opinion based on evidence makes one a sell out now?
Don't you know, in modern times, changing your mind no matter if it is backed by massive amounts of evidence or not, makes you a flip-flopper. You make your opinions known and are required to keep them for all eternity. Thus why even if Disney made all the changes I asked them to make, exactly as I've written them, I'd be required to still hate Epcot. It sucks because years ago I'd have been allowed to change my opinion based on new facts.
 

Horizons '83

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Don't you know, in modern times, changing your mind no matter if it is backed by massive amounts of evidence or not, makes you a flip-flopper. You make your opinions known and are required to keep them for all eternity. Thus why even if Disney made all the changes I asked them to make, exactly as I've written them, I'd be required to still hate Epcot. It sucks because years ago I'd have been allowed to change my opinion based on new facts.

I don't think you guys get it:

He was NEVER for/approved of Genetically Modified Organisms, which is the proper stance... Then along came Monsanto and WITHOUT any scientific evidence he all the sudden approved GMO's. I would applaud him if it were the other way around.
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
Not sure what you are implying...

Bill was wholeheartedly against all GMO's, Monsanto padded his wallet to reverse his option, so he is no Pro-GMO which in my view is irresponsible.
I would hardly call his position "wholeheartedly against all GMO's". He questioned the unknown. He questioned how they would interact with the environment. He questioned how doing X might might unknowingly affect Y.

He got a serious genetics lesson by the scientists that actually do this stuff and he changed his mind based on the evidence. When he saw what they were doing now vs what was done 20 years ago (methods that are still in use by "organic" farmers") his gaps of ignorance were filled in.

Changing your mind based on evidence and stating that you were wrong is that hallmark of a person dedicated to good science.

He was not paid off. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom