tparris
Well-Known Member
For me it went live in the app last Monday.
-
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
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
I like.the original plans for that Pavillion, which had both WoM and a Test Track like ride.
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
Aren’t the sauropods, gallimimus and triceratops identical just painted differently? The only brand new scene is the elasmosaur coming out of the water.
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
Epcot had Hadrosaurs instead of Triceratops, the Sauropods have very different heads with the Disneyland ones being more whimsical looking apatosaurs versus the more serious looking brachiosaur-ish Epcot ones, and the Gallies seem slightly more domeheaded in Epcot.
October82
Well-Known Member
As @ThatMouse said - it's not that this isn't going to be the concept that the pavilion claims to have - the doubt is about whether it will be able to do anything substantive with the concept. There's already basic scientific errors in the way the premise is framed. Now, for the majority of people who aren't astrophysicists, scientific accuracy is not going to be a big deal. But this sort of thing doesn't inspire confidence or suggest a well thought out concept. It's more an excuse after the fact for putting an IP in Future World/World Discovery, in pretty much the same way Frozen's presence in Norway is justified.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Scientific accuracy has never been a Hallmark of Epcot. There were plenty of scientific errors in 1980s EPCOT. The goal is inspiration, not perfect accuracy.
This seems a lot more on theme than Frozen. That ride has nothing to do with culture. This one at least seems to be about some kind of real Discovery. But we shall see how the execution is.
mousekedoc
Well-Known Member
Maybe the horrible sewer smell behind Innoventions West across from the fountains of Imagination will finally be addressed. That smell was always present and impressed on me a lack of, well, pretty much everything, on Disney's part when it came to anything in EPCOT not related to shilling food and booze.
DisneyDreamerxyz
Well-Known Member
I wonder how they are going to tear down the building and keep the breezeway open? since the roof is connected to the other side. Hoping to see demo start soon as they are emptying the buildings now. Saw the article about the Club Cool merchandise fixtures being put in MouseGear for now.
Cmdr_Crimson
Well-Known Member
Probably night time removal for safety reasons..
October82
Well-Known Member
I'm sure there were (and can certainly think of a few, myself). But the difference is that EPCOT Center tried to both educate and inspire. Of course it wasn't perfect at that. But what is lost here is the attempt to educate. The concept of this pavilion ignores what is actually known about its subject matter. And just isn't a substantive attempt to do it justice.
Rather, it's an attempt to motivate an experience that will look like the guardians of the galaxy films - which imagine a universe very different from our own. So that is what we will get here - a loose statement about real world scientific fact to motivate a pavilion that is about a trip through a CGI universe.
I hope it also inspires people, but it's a concept not based in reality.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Can we talk about the naming choices of World Discovery, World Celebration and World Nature? I personally appreciate that they're establishing a framework that better describes this area. I think Future World has always been a bit of a misnomer, with the concept of Discovery being more rooted in Epcot's DNA.
I think conceptually Discovery and Nature are very much in line with the Animal Kingdom themes, but the execution is definitely different. The Discovery in Epcot is largely tied to futurism and technology. Nature in the Animal Kingdom is largely about the power and value of nature, as such you're apt to see nature a bit more "out of control" in that park. The nature side especially is a remarkably fine line, and I don't think many would object if The Seas Pavilion concept or even Living with the Land moved over to Animal Kingdom (not suggesting it, just saying neither would be out of place).
As for World Celebration, the concept of celebration is a bit of a broad topic. I actually look at this area as a center piece section most directly rooted in the World's Fair concept. I'm curious how they settled on these names and if "World's Fair" or "World Fair" was ever in the running for the World Celebration section alone, or the entirety of Future World.
I think conceptually Discovery and Nature are very much in line with the Animal Kingdom themes, but the execution is definitely different. The Discovery in Epcot is largely tied to futurism and technology. Nature in the Animal Kingdom is largely about the power and value of nature, as such you're apt to see nature a bit more "out of control" in that park. The nature side especially is a remarkably fine line, and I don't think many would object if The Seas Pavilion concept or even Living with the Land moved over to Animal Kingdom (not suggesting it, just saying neither would be out of place).
As for World Celebration, the concept of celebration is a bit of a broad topic. I actually look at this area as a center piece section most directly rooted in the World's Fair concept. I'm curious how they settled on these names and if "World's Fair" or "World Fair" was ever in the running for the World Celebration section alone, or the entirety of Future World.
ThatMouse
Well-Known Member
I agree Future World can't work anymore, because consumer tech is in our hands much faster than businesses can adopt it. In the olden days, mainframes and video phones were cool and not everyone even owned a computer. Today, EPCOT has very little future tech to impress us, maybe rocketry and AI, but I doubt anyone in Disney understands it. What they do understand is movies, so we're getting a lot of that. It requires no imagination, it's cheaper, and it's less risk to stockholders. I just watched all the ridethroughs of Journey, Seas, Horizons, WoM, Wonders, and Energy and I forgot how imaginative they were compared to now.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
Risk to stockholders? There is absolutely NO RISK...the parks are currently packed, they hype the opening of an envelope as a new attraction and people show up...There is no risk! at all!... What they can do is create something inspiring and amazing that will create more buzz and draw even more people... but pretty much, any new attraction is no risk and will draw...
ThatMouse
Well-Known Member
I agree that they should make original things at EPCOT and stop relying so much on IP. But they can easily fail either way. Journey had low attendance so they cut 70% out of it. Space and Nemo is walk on. I thought Innoventions was a failure, but they did try to do a few cool things. Club Cool is a success even after tearing out the ice cave, pretty much ALL the theming it had. The Imagineers are just stupid and so are the guest! lol! That's the only way I can describe it.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
but Journey was a huge hit for decades...By today's standards, with a little upgraded tech, it would be an epic ride...They tore out half of it to save money thinking no one wanted long rides anymore...
Space and Nemo were both pretty much one note attractions...Lacking depth...
And the ice cave at Ice Station Cool or whatever it was called was amazing and memorable... The refurb totally destroyed the uniqueness of the space and turned it into a cafeteria... But with the crowd numbers, even the less attended attractions don't seem to keep people away from the park... They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing ambitious,well done attractions...
Space and Nemo were both pretty much one note attractions...Lacking depth...
And the ice cave at Ice Station Cool or whatever it was called was amazing and memorable... The refurb totally destroyed the uniqueness of the space and turned it into a cafeteria... But with the crowd numbers, even the less attended attractions don't seem to keep people away from the park... They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing ambitious,well done attractions...
I disagree there's no risk. Of course there's a risk. That's why Disney is cutting entertainment when their latest attraction isn't attracting the crowds like with Star Wars Galaxy's Edge. Besides, non-IP attractions previously requires a corporate sponsor to pay for it. Since now the dollars are coming from Disney directly, to promote technology exhibits is a huge risk if they are unable to make it work. The simple alternative is Disney doing an attraction that promotes it's own ride and customer service technology. They might be able to pull it off although such an attraction will undoubtedly seem much like an Informercial and Disney will appear to give away it's advantage to competitors when everyone can see how it's done. In any case, Epcot was always when Disney tries to do more than conceptually possible. Epcot was never Epcot.
You simplified the reasons why Imagination went awry. This is exactly why Epcot couldn't be saved.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
EPCOT could have been saved if they had freshened up the original attractions... Updating Imagination by removing half the ride, losing the original characters and song was not the right thing to do...but had it been done retaining the charm of the original, it would still be driving attendance... Energy, Wonders Of Life, Horizons, The Seas, and the Land pavilions could have all been more successful with more timely upgrades ...The attractions in Future World were allowed to languish for far too long.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Back at the 2017 Expo they said Epcot is a place where the Real becomes Fantastic and the Fantastic becomes Real. I had previously only heard this simplification referenced by Tony Baxter and he explicitly broke this up to differentiate Epcot and Magic Kingdom. He said Epcot is where the Real becomes Fantastic and Magic Kingdom is where the Fantastic becomes Real. In short this means that Epcot was where they would take the real world (be it cultures or science or whatever) and make it feel like fantasy. Alternatively the Magic Kingdom is where we made the world of Fantasy feel real.
It's an important distinction and it really rubbed me the wrong way back in 2017 that they assigned both value propositions to Epcot. Fast forward to 2019 and they only identified Epcot as a place where the Real becomes Fantastic. While that very well may have been lip service to a small subsection of the fan community, I hope it indicates a level of understanding of what the park was.
What this means to the future of Not-Future World remains to be seen. We already have things like Frozen Ever After and The Seas with Nemo and Friends that don't support the Real becomes Fantastic moniker. You could argue that Turtle Talk attempts to satisfy the Real becomes Fantastic moniker as does the Royal Sommerhus, but the larger attractions do not.
While cartoonized, I think Remy's Ratatouille Adventure starts with a real world premise/location of a French kitchen and turns it into a world of Fantasy. I'm ok with this. I can also see numerous story treatments that would appropriately place the Guardians of the Galaxy in that park under the Real becomes Fantastic value proposition.
Further dividing the front half of the park into categories Discovery/Celebration/Nature is something that was already done indirectly, they're just putting a name on it.