News Big changes coming to EPCOT's Future World?

Thanks phoenicians

Well-Known Member
I still wonder if we'll see more new attractions or just major refurbishments. So far it seems more refurbishments than anything besides energy and imagination which would be a full gut and rebuild. Granted not everything needs a full gut and rebuild but a lot does. It would also be really cool if we actually added to the attraction count.
 

aladdin2007

Well-Known Member
I'm more confident about Siemens continuing sponsorship after next year now.

I wish with that would come some more investment into fixing some things. Such as maybe finishing what was left undone or doing something with it. At least cleaning if nothing else. I believe there is a small dedicated group that goes in and maintains some of the main scenes because little things are tinkered/improved quite often, so someone must care. But that finale as we all know.....
 

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
I still wonder if we'll see more new attractions or just major refurbishments. So far it seems more refurbishments than anything besides energy and imagination which would be a full gut and rebuild. Granted not everything needs a full gut and rebuild but a lot does. It would also be really cool if we actually added to the attraction count.
If plans come through that should happen.
 

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
While I'm slowly accepting the IP influx happening at Epcot, I am in no way supportive of it.

To me, Epcot was always the "different" park. If I wanted to see the princesses or other characters, I'd go to MK. But at Epcot, I felt like the Imagineers trusted that I could still have a great time through actual learning and imagining things that maybe I wasn't as familiar with. The things that made SSE, Horizons, The Living Seas, Kitchen Kabaret, Cranium Command, and even Imagination so fantastic as a kid was the fact that I had to connect with the rides on my own and I didn't have to rely on a familiar face to tell me how to feel.

The evident oversight in this regard is the number one failure of the current management. They don't trust the public anymore to have a good time without seeing familiar characters running around, which is sad. I hope once Iger leaves, this mentality will go with him...however, even then, it might be too late to course-correct the ship.
 

Ripken10

Well-Known Member
I am glad siemens with stay as I love SSE. However, can they fix the horrible historical inaccuracy of Michelangelo lying down? That drives me crazy and I constantly embarrass my DW and DD every time when I yell out "thats not how he painted". :) Right @awheartsdw
While it is known he painted standing up, looking up at the ceiling, there is no telling if at some point he didn't lay on his back to get some of the details. I doubt Disney (or nearly anybody) will cry over this. heck, maybe Disney knows something you don't (maybe he put the final touches on that way cause his neck was killing him as records indicate it did)
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
While I'm slowly accepting the IP influx happening at Epcot, I am in no way supportive of it.

To me, Epcot was always the "different" park. If I wanted to see the princesses or other characters, I'd go to MK. But at Epcot, I felt like the Imagineers trusted that I could still have a great time through actual learning and imagining things that maybe I wasn't as familiar with. The things that made SSE, Horizons, The Living Seas, Kitchen Kabaret, Cranium Command, and even Imagination so fantastic as a kid was the fact that I had to connect with the rides on my own and I didn't have to rely on a familiar face to tell me how to feel.

The evident oversight in this regard is the number one failure of the current management. They don't trust the public anymore to have a good time without seeing familiar characters running around, which is sad. I hope once Iger leaves, this mentality will go with him...however, even then, it might be too late to course-correct the ship.

Except there WERE characters back then. Even discounting the space-suited Mickey and crew, there was a Sport Goofy thing over at the Wonders of Life Pavilion, for instance.
 

RoysCabin

Well-Known Member
The more I think about an Imagination redo, I'm not sure what I want. It likely spells the end of Figment and confirmation of the end of Dreamfinder, so maybe the longer the wait the better. Is it worth it for the pavilion to out wait the current "IP tie-in" mindset?

I'm guessing that the whole "Inside-Out to Imagination, Dreamfinder and Figment to Tomorrowland" thing isn't going to be reality. @marni1971 has said he hasn't heard that and that an Imagination overhaul is not at the absolute top of the list of things to be done at EPCOT, so by the time they get around to it I have to figure that Inside-Out won't be considered a hot enough property to sink that much cash into (successful movie, of course, but not a world-beater).

I do think that aspect of IP obsession has to be assessed, whether it's among corporate/WDI or even among us fans. Not every movie needs a ride because, frankly, in this day and age of high priced movie tickets even movies that do well at the box office don't exactly leave the same cultural mark or attain the same cultural relevance as they once did. Films like Wreck it Ralph and Inside-Out were good, even very good, but they didn't fundamentally alter the landscape of film in a way that cries out for a standalone attraction meant to be visited and relevant for at least a decade. Star Wars, Toy Story, franchises like that do have something closer to that level of long term relevance, but the dash to just include whatever's new into the parks sets up a lot of attractions that will lose their relevance in short order. Yet the current regime at corporate seems to have us all in a tizzy imagining just about any and everything getting shoehorned in, regardless of how successful or impactful a film may have been.

There are some interesting analyses out there of what may happen to the current Hollywood "tentpole film" strategy starting around 2018, due to the overload of high budget films being made now alongside the continued rising prices/revenues of tickets and the simultaneous decrease in the overall number of film tickets sold. If Disney gets stuck into the pattern of just hoisting a film into the parks all willy nilly, they're going to be way behind the curve if what's beginning to feel like an inevitable bubble burst in the film industry occurs.

I think I fear for that more in the World Showcase, as it's a place that really thrives on a low key, leisurely atmosphere, which could really be upset by a perceived need to cram in the IPs; heck, I fear that we may not get much in the way of new countries, but simply standalone rides in the expansion pads that aren't even related to a national pavilion (I have no way of knowing that, just a bit of a fearful guess). I'm choosing to let the fact that some of our insiders seem heartened by some of the ideas make me feel a bit better, but the IP overload potential does feel a bit like a Sword of Damocles right now, so I can't help but kind of agree with you that the best bet could be hoping that the IP fever abates when Iger steps down. Maybe his successor just picks up where he left off, but yeah, I'd at least like to take my chances with somebody else at the helm.
 

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
Except there WERE characters back then. Even discounting the space-suited Mickey and crew, there was a Sport Goofy thing over at the Wonders of Life Pavilion, for instance.

Well sure there were some characters, but by and large they were in the background (and minor attractions) instead of the main focus. Also, they were more adapted to the theme of where they were being used, instead of being shoe-horned in later in an attempt to spice up the attraction.
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
Except there WERE characters back then. Even discounting the space-suited Mickey and crew, there was a Sport Goofy thing over at the Wonders of Life Pavilion, for instance.
The difference is that they weren't dominating features. Goofy About Health was a small, easily overlooked walk-in/out open theater. The Circle of Life film is a small, out in a corner thing at the Land. Cartoon characters were a supplementary thing at Epcot once.
 

brb1006

Well-Known Member
The "Dreamfinder's coming back, but he and Figment are being exiled to Tomorrowland as walkarounds while Imagination gets turned Inside Out" thing that Jim Hill is claiming is the most stupidly wishy-washy thing I've ever heard.
Like if you're gonna put all this money and energy into updating Epcot, even if you're going for an IP-driven route, it makes no sense to evict the characters and have them set up shop somewhere else and have no big thing presenting context for why they're even their. The comics have been great, but it's a niche medium. You need a movie/TV Show/Actual Freaking Attraction around to support Dreamfinder and Figment.
Especially if the film is animated.

How how the mighty have fallen
 

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
I do think that aspect of IP obsession has to be assessed, whether it's among corporate/WDI or even among us fans. Not every movie needs a ride because, frankly, in this day and age of high priced movie tickets even movies that do well at the box office don't exactly leave the same cultural mark or attain the same cultural relevance as they once did.

I would say (and this is just my opinion), that the over-obsession with IP has to do largely with the fact that our culture and society, more so now than ever, feels the need to be told how to think and feel. Things of originality scare people today because it requires them to fill in the gaps with their own experiences or conceptions of how things are. I think this is largely why most studios are pumping our reboots, sequels, prequels, etc. They're safe. Rather than gamble on a new, untested idea, they know that people will just eat up the next installment of "_______" franchise because they went ga-ga for the last one. And that belief is showing itself in the parks. Rather than trusting that guests will have a great time at this attraction featuring unfamiliar characters, they just take whatever made "good" money at the B.O. and think to themselves, "hey, they loved the movie, they'll love the ride even more!" But that's the problem. It's an unsustainable trend. Eventually they'll run out of space to put all the new movie-based attractions and possibly run the risk of getting desperate and axe something long-standing and beloved just to make the immediate audience happy.
 

britain

Well-Known Member
I'm guessing that the whole "Inside-Out to Imagination, Dreamfinder and Figment to Tomorrowland" thing isn't going to be reality. @marni1971 I think I fear for that more in the World Showcase, as it's a place that really thrives on a low key, leisurely atmosphere, which could really be upset by a perceived need to cram in the IPs; heck, I fear that we may not get much in the way of new countries, but simply standalone rides in the expansion pads that aren't even related to a national pavilion (I have no way of knowing that, just a bit of a fearful guess).

Still, don't forget how large WS is. They could fill in half the available pads with crappy carny stuff, and the mood of the place would still be low-key and nice. Like a charming foreign town with a few annoying new businesses added to the marketplace.

And that’s worst case scenario. If Frozen is an example of what IP attractions would be like at EPCOT, I don't think the vibe of WS is at stake.

Now, that’s only if they add to it. If they are taking stuff out…
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
I would say (and this is just my opinion), that the over-obsession with IP has to do largely with the fact that our culture and society, more so now than ever, feels the need to be told how to think and feel. Things of originality scare people today because it requires them to fill in the gaps with their own experiences or conceptions of how things are. I think this is largely why most studios are pumping our reboots, sequels, prequels, etc. They're safe. Rather than gamble on a new, untested idea, they know that people will just eat up the next installment of "_______" franchise because they went ga-ga for the last one. And that belief is showing itself in the parks. Rather than trusting that guests will have a great time at this attraction featuring unfamiliar characters, they just take whatever made "good" money at the B.O. and think to themselves, "hey, they loved the movie, they'll love the ride even more!" But that's the problem. It's an unsustainable trend. Eventually they'll run out of space to put all the new movie-based attractions and possibly run the risk of getting desperate and axe something long-standing and beloved just to make the immediate audience happy.
That doesn't make any sense. Frozen was a new, untested idea as of three years ago. Now it's derided as the most egregious example of IP-cramming at WDW. The Walt Disney Company came up with the original idea of Frozen and they deserve credit for that. I don't care if WDAS came up with the idea and then WDI used it for the theme parks. These creative synergies within the company are exactly why Walt wanted to build theme parks in the first place. He practically invented the idea of cross-platform branding and now it's the thing people complain about the most.

I can make the same argument about Guardians of the Galaxy. Sure, those characters were created by Marvel in the 70s, but Groot was no more in the public consciousness prior to 2014 than was The Snow Queen, the fairy tale on which Frozen was based. Granted, there are other arguments to be had against GotG in Epcot, but a blanket-distaste for anything on the premise of "IP is bad" sells the creative achievements of the company in recent years short.
 

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
That doesn't make any sense. Frozen was a new, untested idea as of three years ago. Now it's derided as the most egregious example of IP-cramming at WDW. The Walt Disney Company came up with the original idea of Frozen and they deserve credit for that. I don't care if WDAS came up with the idea and then WDI used it for the theme parks. These creative synergies within the company are exactly why Walt wanted to build theme parks in the first place. He practically invented the idea of cross-platform branding and now it's the thing people complain about the most.

Well, Frozen sucked...but that's for another debate.
I'm all for giving Disney credit for creating Frozen (except, you know, that part about it being based on the Snow Queen). Yes, it was an untested idea that did really well $$-wise for the company, and now its because it was so successful, you'll never escape it at the parks. Its getting its own land in DL, has its own show in DCA, replaced a ride in Epcot, and is getting a sequel (and probably future ones down the line). Frozen can't just be Frozen "the successful movie", it has to be everything, everywhere. And I just think that's the fearful trend we'll see continue for ANY movie that is succe$$ful whether Disney created or from a purchased company.
 

RoysCabin

Well-Known Member
I would say (and this is just my opinion), that the over-obsession with IP has to do largely with the fact that our culture and society, more so now than ever, feels the need to be told how to think and feel. Things of originality scare people today because it requires them to fill in the gaps with their own experiences or conceptions of how things are. I think this is largely why most studios are pumping our reboots, sequels, prequels, etc. They're safe. Rather than gamble on a new, untested idea, they know that people will just eat up the next installment of "_______" franchise because they went ga-ga for the last one. And that belief is showing itself in the parks. Rather than trusting that guests will have a great time at this attraction featuring unfamiliar characters, they just take whatever made "good" money at the B.O. and think to themselves, "hey, they loved the movie, they'll love the ride even more!" But that's the problem. It's an unsustainable trend. Eventually they'll run out of space to put all the new movie-based attractions and possibly run the risk of getting desperate and axe something long-standing and beloved just to make the immediate audience happy.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far; I don't think the public itself is explicitly to blame, particularly in an era where some may argue we're more self-expressive than we've been in a long time thanks to the boom in communications technology (there are lots of debates to be had about how expressive we are if we use the same platforms, but it's still the era of readily available information, after all). I think Occam's Razor should always apply: the head honchos at corporate pinch some pennies by being slow on updating or upkeeping certain attractions, they see big box office returns from the film division, they see some attractions at the parks getting older and more worn from corporate's neglect, they've now created a feedback loop that lets them put two-and-two together to equal new revenue.

As the dollar amounts spent on things like tentpole movies keep going up, the perceived need to advertise more, to sell more merchandise, to use the rides as advertising, to not take major risks keeps getting stronger and stronger; it's not that the public would never accept a new idea, it's that the studios are going in so deep from a financial perspective that they're scared to take those risks, and it's a fair fear to have in an era where business and finance is driven by a mindset of "what do the next two quarterly projections look like?" A bad two quarters could've outsed Iger at any random point, for example, so he was sure to buy up properties of familiar stories and characters and market the high holy hell out of them. The public may desire something newer than more Star Wars/Marvel/etc., but as long as studios keep trying to outdo one another with huge budget spectacles, they're not likely to take a chance on a new Star Wars.

@britain , you're certainly right about the size of the WS, but that's just it: in a themed environment, we shouldn't have to worry about potential eyesores or out of place marketplaces. I'm not saying any new ride would automatically be awful, but the entire point of theming and planning your environment is to iron out inconsistencies and to maintain what the folks at WED always called the "architecture of reassurance". It's not to say that such attractions would automatically be failures, but it's just extrapolating concern based on Disney's recent track record. Frozen alone doesn't suddenly shatter World Showcase and its ambiance, but I fear it as part of a trend.

@CaptainAmerica, I think you just inadvertently made the argument for newer rides instead of IPs for a lot of people. Yes, before they were released as movies not a ton of people knew the story of The Snow Queen nor did a ton of people read enough comics to know about the Guardians of the Galaxy. While they weren't financial investments on the level of Star Wars Episode VII or the Avengers movies, they were still slight gambles, Disney hoping that people would see that Disney animation was making Frozen and that Marvel Studios was making GotG, take that as a positive sign, and say "ok, I may not know these stories/characters, but I trust those studios so I'll give them a try". They paid off. Why should that mentality not apply to the theme parks, then? The Disney theme park brand name still has plenty of cultural cache, and Disney has a history of taking original concepts and turning them into highly successful theme parks, rides, and attractions, so why not take some calculated risks and gambles there rather than falling back on what's considered "safe", albeit potentially transient?
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Well, Frozen sucked...but that's for another debate.
Ah yes. The ol' "I didn't like it, so it sucked" argument.

I'm all for giving Disney credit for creating Frozen (except, you know, that part about it being based on the Snow Queen). Yes, it was an untested idea that did really well $$-wise for the company, and now its because it was so successful, you'll never escape it at the parks. Its getting its own land in DL, has its own show in DCA, replaced a ride in Epcot, and is getting a sequel (and probably future ones down the line).
I was at WDW in April 2015, January 2016, and May 2016, and I haven't done anything Frozen related whatsoever. It wasn't that hard to "escape it." It replaced Maelstrom and has a temporary show at DHS, a park currently in desperate need of temporary shows. Frozen Ever After is wildly popular and Maelstrom was often a walk-on. The ride also features cutting edge AA tech. By any objective measure, it was a major upgrade.

Frozen can't just be Frozen "the successful movie", it has to be everything, everywhere.
How is that any different than CarsToyStoryBeautyandtheBeastSnowWhiteCinderellaLittleMermaidLionKing or any other film that has a theme park presence? That's what The Walt Disney Company is, at its core. That's what the theme parks are. It's a place where beloved characters come to life.

And I just think that's the fearful trend we'll see continue for ANY movie that is succe$$ful whether Disney created or from a purchased company.
See, you use the $$ in a derisive way. Franchises only make money when people like them. Making profitable attractions and making attractions that make the guests happy are the same thing.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom