Wonders of Life had Goofy as part of an attraction. The Land had the Lion King inserted into it in 1995.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Big changes coming to EPCOT's Future World?
- Thread starter djkidkaz
- Start date
Wonders of Life had Goofy as part of an attraction. The Land had the Lion King inserted into it in 1995.
Get over yourself. You're just splitting hairs.
ShoalFox
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Not to mention both of those were/are VERY well done and fit their respective themes.
You know my young nephew who is a big Pixar fan rode the Living Seas with Nemo about a year ago, and you know what he loved it. He was fascinated by what he saw and really engaged with the rest of exhibits and wanted to learn more. I'd call that a success I don't see why there is the need to go off the wall when an attraction is overlaid or linked to a certain piece of IP IF IT IS DONE WELL.
Quoting the EPCOT Dedication "May Epcot Center entertain, inform and inspire. And, above all, may it instill a new sense of belief and pride in man's ability to shape a world that offers hope to people everywhere."
Quoting the EPCOT Dedication "May Epcot Center entertain, inform and inspire. And, above all, may it instill a new sense of belief and pride in man's ability to shape a world that offers hope to people everywhere."
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
So? Just because people aren't making huge lists doesnt mean what is not presently being discussed is considered great.
A hair the original designers considered worth splitting.
Because if it is really on theme and engaging then there is no need for distracting, ancillary film characters.
First you're taking a very single minded position that all guests want what you want. Second you need to balance entertainment and education. Going back to a setting up attractions as if it were 1982 again would probably not be a good thing. Look at the universe of energy for example. I fell asleep on it last December and I'm not that type of person to do that.
It must be nice up there on your high horse not seeing the reality beneath you. You're pushing something that Epcot lost long before Frozen.
But don't worry I'm sure another food and wine flower festival with more wine and food and flowers will solve Epcots problem of having only 2.5 attractions that people want to experience. But we should limit any attraction development to not use any Disney ip because it isn't fitting or appropriate with the theme of a dying park.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying all guests want what I want; I'm saying the creative strength shouldn't be weakened to attract the uninterested. It just doesn't work. Audiences don't respond to such efforts to make something into what it is not. If people aren't interested in the offerings then they can go somewhere else. The only difference here is that some are trying to tie their limited interests in themed entertainment to children as though they are some sort of sacred idol that cannot be questioned. That is singleminded, demanding that everything become homogeneous to fit a limited set of interests.
This notion of balancing entertainment and education is built on a false dichotomy. It isn't an either or option. Education can be entertaining and entertainment can be educational. There shouldn't be a deliberate distinction as that only undermines any notion of education, as though learning and thought are some lesser concept that must be trudged through.
Listing an example of a poor execution doesn't negate a concept. There are plenty of lousy property driven attractions but nobody would accept those as a reason to do away with them entirely.
I am certainly not saying that education and entertainment in an attraction are mutually exclusive. I am saying that the instant rejection of any type of integration of entertainment component especially if it is geared to a younger demo is foolish. Disney more than any other entertainment company has the great ability to create a story for an attraction that will bring all ages together. Not taking advantage of this would be foolish if the end product is done well.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone is rejecting the integration of entertainment or the ability to be appreciated by children. The issue is with the belief that there is only one means of accomplishing that goal, the introduction of characters from established properties. If Disney truly is the unique company that can create engaging content that appeals to all ages then there is no need to trick children; the subject can speak for itself and be what forms the emotional connection.
You go to Disney to be immersed in Disney. Why reengineer a successful formula? DAK is a good example of where The Lion King was a good fit with the theming of the park. Why should we limit ourselves? If Wall-E can be thematically integrated into The Land for example taking common themes from the movie and pavilion and putting them into a package that can be appreciated by a wide audience, what's the problem?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Because Disney is not defined only by the films or what already exists. Nobody asked why Mickey Mouse wasn't in Frozen or Woody and Buzz weren't in Inside Out. By this notion the majority of Disney's theme park experiences are not an exercise in being immersed in Disney.
Festival of the Lion King didn't fit with Disney's Animal Kingdom. It was tossed into a barely conceptualized land about camping. Being an amazing spectacle isn't what defines theme. It's really more the wider understanding of the theatrical production that in any way ties the show into its current home in Africa, but even then the story of the film and the attraction are really about animals. Including a few of the same elements doesn't make something a part of the same theme.
Excluding characters is like excluding spacemen from Frontierland. All kinds of story conceits can be dreamed up to make it "work" but it is all ultimately distracting from the supposedly core story. As soon as you say "This is Wall•E telling you about environmental issues" the primary focus has shifted. The main subject is now the character. The "wider" audience (which isn't true, no wider audience has been attracted by making the park more "relevant") isn't there for the core subject, they are there for the character because that's the whole point of why parks use properties.
Let's hope sometime this millenium they can be bothered to fix it then.
trevorfs
New Member
True
Chris82
Well-Known Member
He counts as something...Are you suggesting Bill Nye the Science Guy doesn't count as a character?
Kman101
Well-Known Member
So why were kids who are now adults and have a fondness for the park able to have a good old time on the various rides before there was the inclusion of Nemo and Donald, etc? The rides did just fine and didn't need characters so why do they need them now. THAT'S what no one really answers who insists their little one likes it better. Well, how would you know if they wouldn't like it without Nemo. Parents underestimate their kids and set themselves up to expect them to be bored and that's the wrong mindframe.
And look, I get it. Mickey and the Princesses don't really "belong" in EPCOT but at the same time, I wouldn't expect a Disney park to NOT have them for meet and greets. I don't see how having them in a building you can walk on by is a problem? And is Alice or Snow White standing in their respective countries REALLY that bad? Or Donald in his sombrero? I don't think those are really that big of a deal. Just because they weren't there in 1982 doesn't mean they can't be there today. I have the problem with them shoehorning characters into rides and then having them be poor examples and a clear rush job. They don't need to be there in the rides at all but if they are, at least do it right and not on the cheap.
And look, I get it. Mickey and the Princesses don't really "belong" in EPCOT but at the same time, I wouldn't expect a Disney park to NOT have them for meet and greets. I don't see how having them in a building you can walk on by is a problem? And is Alice or Snow White standing in their respective countries REALLY that bad? Or Donald in his sombrero? I don't think those are really that big of a deal. Just because they weren't there in 1982 doesn't mean they can't be there today. I have the problem with them shoehorning characters into rides and then having them be poor examples and a clear rush job. They don't need to be there in the rides at all but if they are, at least do it right and not on the cheap.
*Q*
Well-Known Member
Florida will probably be underwater by then.
