Bob Chapek Confirms Disney Will Overhaul Epcot

[GlacierGlacier]

So future rides are going to be lackluster then? Aside from GotG at least?

It probably means rides will be lesser in quantity but distributed around the park.

Or just less rides in general

 

[Pi on my Cake]

So future rides are going to be lackluster then? Aside from GotG at least?

I suppose that partially depends on if you consider anything that isn't a D/E Ticket to be lackluster

 

[jt04]

I've heard a few things by getting a few people to pass a j with me this holiday week.
I'm actually cautiously optimistic about EPCOT.
Not like... bursting with joy
and I'm filtering it through the lense of knowing that 1) things will change from the plans I heard and 2) things will never be EPCOT Center again.
but it's going to be better than the half day slab of festival concrete that's there now.

I like your second bullet point. Time to move on already. Maybe by a decade and a half.

 

[MisterPenguin]

"Isles" of Adventure... because "-lands" were already taken.

 

[sedati]

I think of EPCOT much as I do Carousel of Progress.
Even in the state it's in, I consider it a must do. Charming, unique, time well spent- A Classic.
A classic that is well past due a refresh.
Now, even if they do right by it and dress it up to the nines, what difference is it really going to make from a broader perspective? People who enjoy the show will feel well served, but they would probably continue going regardless. The casual fans will probably check it out to see what's new, then move on. Those who find it skippable now, will likely find it skippable post-refurb.
The attraction can be less of an embarrassment, but it will never be a draw.- which is fine for a something that is only meant to round out the day, but does not work for entire park (EPCOT Center.) That is the perspective I think is needed, and it seems hard for those who loved the park to understand. The whole park day was like one long turn on Carousel of Progress to many guests.
Some younger guests have posted some excellent thoughts on how they came to love EPCOT Center even though they never got to experience it "in it's prime." I assume those same people also have an affinity for Carousel of Progress. To them I would ask- how does the rest of your party enjoy that attraction? I'm sure some enjoy it, but I'm sure for many it's just a nice way to get out of the heat without waiting in a long line. That in a nutshell was my experience with EPCOT Center in it's prime. I thought the park was a revelation- for everyone else it was too big, too hot, and very much a one and done. There wasn't a ride or show my father couldn't fall asleep at.
I'm sure a few of you are lucky enough to have a whole crew of diehard fans, but honestly, can anyone else get their friends/family to do Carousel of Progress twice in a trip?

There's (hopefully) a great big beautiful tomorrow, but it can't look like yesterday.

 

[marni1971]

but honestly, can anyone else get their friends/family to do Carousel of Progress twice in a trip?

Twice? No. Four or five times? Yes. Even I decided I’d had enough when some of my party wanted to do it again.

Progress is only progress when it’s an improvement on what came before. And that would depend on personal point of view, and so many variables of said people.

 

[Cesar R M]

Is it a whole DVC dark ride with a sign up booth at the end?

Imagine the candy river tunnel from Willy Wonka, but themed to DVC.
"To survive is buying DVC" kiosks by the end..

 

[sedati]

Twice? No. Four or five times? Yes. I even I decided I’d had enough when some of my party wanted to do it again.

Progress is only progress when it’s an improvement on what came before. And that would depend on personal point of view, and so many variables of said people.

I'm not saying my experiences are indicative of everyone else's, but I don't think they've been an outlier either.

I'd love to experience the parks as you have with a group whose interest exceeds even my own. But I also wish you could have some of my experiences just for perspective.

I honestly feel bad that most of my posts about Epcot here are on the negative side. Anywhere else I'd be singing the park's praises. But I see a need here to acknowledge that the park had some significant problems from the outset, and not just from the 90's onward.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I honestly feel bad that most of my posts about Epcot here are on the negative side. Anywhere else I'd be singing the park's praises. But I see a need here to acknowledge that the park had some significant problems from the outset, and not just from the 90's onward.

How is helping keep Walt Disney Productions profitable despite repeated losses at the Studio a significant problem?

 

[briangaw]

I think there has been what seems like a lack of final decisions and ultimate direction with the Epcot, because in corporate and Imagineering there is as much struggle and back as forth as there has been on this thread.

I think the biggest issue is how to keep a theme park inspired by the World's Fair going when for the most part World's Fairs (while they continue) have waned in the US at least. I stumbled upon this article: "How the 'World of Tomorrow' Became a Thing of the Past" http://time.com/79600/the-fall-of-the-fair/ it is a 2014 Times article. It is very interesting to read and then apply to the context of Epcot. Literally all of the factors affecting the World's Fairs are affecting Epcot one for one and it is striking. As said by @Sirwalterraleigh above and others the internet is a huge factor. Further the financial model without sponsors (who with the internet and social media don't need a Disney park display for advertisement) is huge factor.

Another factor that isn't discussed in the article and I think is huge is the rise of the local science centers/science museums. While they did exist in the early 1980's when Epcot opened, they really grew and became widespread in the 1980's and 1990's in the US. And in the UK, a large WDW market, science centers expanded with the millennium celebration. I mean the Orlando Science Center exists in the same metropolitan area as WDW. Contrary to:

but science museums are still popular so if they could manage a hybrid of a science museum and a theme park on a scale that only Disney can do that should work.

I think respectfully that the reverse is true. Now that science centers are everywhere and are so popular, the average Disney goer probably thinks why take the time to go to a park to see "new" technology or have interactive edutainment when they can get a more up to date, more interactive, more one-on-one, and a far less expensive experience at the local science center. Sort of makes the Future World side of Epcot obsolete. While a great idea in the 1980's, perhaps the concept of a continuous World's Fair with a lack of any IP/Disney influence has to go the way of he dodo much like the actual World's Fairs. Sad to say, but maybe a doomed concept.

So what do they do? The last line of the article above is interesting: "To avoid slipping from “the world of tomorrow” to “the world of the past,” the new U.S. Fairs will have to harken back to the old New York Fairs’ sense of wonder and aspiration."

 

[sedati]

How is helping keep Walt Disney Productions profitable despite repeated losses at the Studio a significant problem?

So all's good?
Was it not way over budget, and therefore took funds that could have gone elsewhere? (Sort of the "Thanks Shanghai" of it's day)
Did it not show need of significant reinvestment much faster than anticipated?
Yes it opened with a bang, but how well did it resonate over time with all four quadrants of guests?

I mean, the park seems to make money today- does that mean there aren't problems with it? Guardians may bump up attendance when it opens- does that mean the giant box isn't an issue then? Profit=perfection?

 

[lazyboy97o]

So all's good?
Was it not way over budget, and therefore took funds that could have gone elsewhere? (Sort of the "Thanks Shanghai" of it's day)
Did it not show need of significant reinvestment much faster than anticipated?
Yes it opened with a bang, but how well did it resonate over time with all four quadrants of guests?

I mean, the park seems to make money today- does that mean there aren't problems with it? Guardians may bump up attendance when it opens- does that mean the giant box isn't an issue then? Profit=perfection?

It was over budget just like Disneyland was over budget, and Phase 1 of Walt Disney World was over budget. Like those it was also profitable. The park did not need significant reinvestment faster than planned. The refreshes were built into the sponsorship contracts and started as scheduled under new leadership that did not understand the park and claimed it’s “failure” as justification for their position.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

How is helping keep Walt Disney Productions profitable despite repeated losses at the Studio a significant problem?

You think overcharging/exploiting the parks is about the nutcracker bombing?

It’s all about tv...movies have nothing to do with it...

Maybe when “walt disney productions” still existed...like 1967

 

[lazyboy97o]

You think overcharging/exploiting the parks is about the nutcracker bombing?

It’s all about tv...movies have nothing to do with it...

Maybe when “walt disney productions” still existed...like 1967

I wasn’t referring to the present.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It was over budget just like Disneyland was over budget, and Phase 1 of Walt Disney World was over budget. Like those it was also profitable. The park did not need significant reinvestment faster than planned. The refreshes were built into the sponsorship contracts and started as scheduled under new leadership that did not understand the park and claimed it’s “failure” as justification for their position.

Yeah...but Epcot was overbudget by like a billion dollars...almost sunk the ship. They barley survived that at the time...it was different when dak went overbudget that much for an underbuild.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I wasn’t referring to the present.

See below/above

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yeah...but Epcot was overbudget by line a billion dollars...almost sunk the ship. They barley survived that at the time...it was different went dak went overbudget that much for an underbuild.

The park was profitable. The studio is what was dragging down financial performance. The story that EPCOT Center sank the company is just that, a story used to justify Roy’s coup.

 

[sedati]

It was over budget just like Disneyland was over budget, and Phase 1 of Walt Disney World was over budget. Like those it was also profitable. The park did not need significant reinvestment faster than planned. The refreshes were built into the sponsorship contracts and started as scheduled under new leadership that did not understand the park and claimed it’s “failure” as justification for their position.

I disagree and see the reinvestment plan as evidence of trouble. Ten years proved too long (again, in theme park terms this is a horrifyingly short time for anything beyond spit and polish.) The sponsorship plan fell apart as sponsors cut budgets or cut and run entirely. Imagine building a house- after a decade you might do some sprucing up, or even put on an addition, but you'd be rightly upset if it needed major structural or utility work already.
Magic Kingdom offers something for everyone. If you don't like Hall of Presidents, well there's Space Mountain. Having those seemingly disparate elements creates a balance. Not everyone will like everything, but everyone will find something they like and therefore it's an ideal family day out. If Spaceship Earth wasn't for you, well then, there wasn't much in Future World that would round out your experience. If Canada didn't hold your interest, you were going to have a rough time as you made your way around World Showcase Lagoon.

Imagine you're part of that new leadership and you see how much money was spent and then told to spend a whole lot more. You'd probably want some guarantee this second wave of investment would sustain the park longer than the first. Could you honestly promise it would? Horizons, Living Seas, Morocco, Norway, Wonders of Life. All major additions. How much did they move the needle in a positive direction? How long did they breath new and exiting life into the park?
The Land, Energy, and Spaceship Earth all had refurbs that kept their themes relatively intact. But did they really help? How much bang did they get for those bucks (curse you "Food Rocks.")

Yeah, we've had decades now of just throwing out ideas to see what sticks. I don't think flailing is the failure, I think drowning is.

 

[Demarke]

Wonders possibly, Imag undecided, SSE I don’t know (it’s a year earlier than I expected if reports are correct), spine undecided but could go either way depending on which version is chosen, tombstones should still go.

Any idea what they are planning for the tombstones (or the plates on top of them anyway)? I was thinking they were obligated to keep them up for twenty years and that they stopped selling in 2007, I would assume Disney was smart enough to leave themselves room to relocate, but was just curious what they might have planned for them if they take them away from the entrance before 2027.

 

[flynnibus]

I honestly feel bad that most of my posts about Epcot here are on the negative side. Anywhere else I'd be singing the park's praises. But I see a need here to acknowledge that the park had some significant problems from the outset, and not just from the 90's onward.

It's biggest issue was trying to be contemporary in the exploding media age that brought us international travel, 500 channels, and the ever increasing pace of technology advancement. Which basically meant, it had to be refreshed... and Disney didn't adapt to the new pace required.

Additions like WoL and the Seas helped with the 'too boring' angles with the openers. If World Showcase had followed through with similar additions, instead of big wiffs like Maelstrom... the park would have found the balance many felt it needed.