Bob Chapek Confirms Disney Will Overhaul Epcot

[HMF]

At the moment. No. They seem to currently be on a damage limitation drive, desperate to convince us they’re not continuing to change the park out of all recognition.

I would almost prefer they change the name as what it is becoming really isn't worthy of the Epcot Name.

 

[marni1971]

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’d have to write a novel! Although I was lucky to take two first timers to Orlando four years ago, and spend three weeks taking them around the parks. A lot of their comments about Epcot in particular were very telling, moreso coming from guests who had no preconceived ideas or even knew what an epcot was. In brief they marvelled at SSE, enjoyed TT and Soarin, enjoyed Maelstrom, hated F&W, found Imag lacklustre, were wowed with the travelling theatre and AmAd, found Canada and IDF dated and were gobsmacked by RoE. They also returned this year and were disappointed with Frozenstrom and the Guardians building. They liked the new format of M:S. They were also shocked about the prices but that’s for another discussion.

 

[marni1971]

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.

I belive the contract says they have to be displayed somewhere until a finite date, but I don’t have the paperwork to hand (as I drink a morning coffee and munch on toast). I’ve seen one possibility where they aren’t in the entrance plaza.

 

[marni1971]

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.

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.

EPCOT Center wasn’t so much over budget as it was poorly budgeted. In 1979 it was proposed at 600 million. Even allowing for inflation and overruns Horizons alone cost 85 million. Anyone could see the original total was woefully inadequate. Add constant tinkering and plussing by WED (much to the dismay of the contractors) and the fact they were dealing quite often with the unknown, and the huge amounts of money literally thrown at the project to try and meet the unmovable opening date set back in 1979, only double the original estimate didn’t sound that much.

Add in like you said the floundering studio, and the strain on WED trying to also design and build Tokyo Disneyland and DLs New Fantasyland at the same time and it was a potential perfect storm.

 

[wdisney9000]

If you don't like Hall of Presidents, well there's Space Mountain. Having those seemingly disparate elements creates a balance.

That balance you speak of is created by having different lands with distinct identities and each containing unique experiences. This method must be applied on a larger scale to the individual parks themselves. One being different from the other is the very essence of what makes them unique. The more they become carbon copies of each other, the more it defeats the entire point of having separate parks.

 

[trainplane3]

I’d have to write a novel! Although I was lucky to take two first timers to Orlando four years ago, and spend three weeks taking them around the parks. A lot of their comments about Epcot in particular were very telling, moreso coming from guests who had no preconceived ideas or even knew what an epcot was. In brief they marvelled at SSE, enjoyed TT and Soarin, enjoyed Maelstrom, hated F&W, found Imag lacklustre, were wowed with the travelling theatre and AmAd, found Canada and IDF dated and were gobsmacked by RoE. They also returned this year and were disappointed with Frozenstrom and the Guardians building. They liked the new format of M:S. They were also shocked about the prices but that’s for another discussion.

My couple friends I've taken down there had similar reactions as well. Im still surprised they liked UoE so much. They did say it was drawn out (and the old content) but were in awe of the scale of everything about it. They asked what was replacing it and I told them GotG to which they responded "That's cool but that should be in DHS instead. Epcots about technology and the future, right?". We still haven't done FEA just because we don't care to waste time on it and would much rather run around WS watching the entertainment (Sergio, the chef and waiter, etc).

 

[jt04]

I would almost prefer they change the name as what it is becoming really isn't worthy of the Epcot Name.

The best way to break from the past. They just need to explain the park as originated no longer fits the vision they have for wdw. Add in a couple big announcements and the only concern will be a few social media comp!aints.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

Actually...they weren’t really in trouble at all. It was lack of confidence in the idiot son in law that brought raiders in looking for an easy buyoff and gold/Wells seized on the weakness and got investors to go along with a straight boardroom coup

 

[Missing20K]

Depending on who you talk to, the film that Walt did of EPCOT before he did was simply a showpiece and now real exploration of what would be required was done (basically it was a fluff piece to get the laws they wanted passed). Regardless, In reality, as one of the Imagineers pointed out, as soon as people moved in the E and P would be done. "You cannot experiment with people's lives. What if we installed a prototype kitchen that didn't work?" Indeed many of the initial 'experimental' thing tried at Disney turned out to have unexpected issues (the pneumatic garbage system that often jammed), proved impractical (the modular building of rooms) or overly expensive (monorail). As soon as they actually set down to try and plan the city, too many such roadblocks came to mind. (Plus, those residents could VOTE!) In the end, Celebration was as close as they could come.

I can't like this post enough.

That balance you speak of is created by having different lands with distinct identities and each containing unique experiences. This method must be applied on a larger scale to the individual parks themselves. One being different from the other is the very essence of what makes them unique. The more they become carbon copies of each other, the more it defeats the entire point of having separate parks.

Size? I don't want to tour a single park the size of 4 TPFKaEPCOT. Everything else I tend to agree with though.

 

[mikejs78]

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.

But the decadal refreshes weren't meant to be complete teardowns and redos - they were meant to be updates to keep the content fresh. Spaceship Earth worked in this regards... So did The Land. Journey Into Imagination would probably have been best served by plussing it a little rather than a complete redo into the awful attraction that followed. UoE would have been better updating the films but keeping the general attraction intact. Horizons could have easily been updated in a similar manner to SSE. I think the mistake they made was assuming that each attraction did need a major overhaul. Refreshes every 10 years, then add-on new attractions over time. Imagine the Motion pavillion if they had added Test Track to WoM rather than replaced it (which I believe the original plan for the pavillion was to have both types of attractions).

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.

I do wonder about this in regards to the canceled Epcot attractions, if some of them had been built if the criticism that the park only had one type of ride would have been muted (which is a bit unfair criticism in my view, but it's an argument that people make). For example, if the original Space pavilion had been built (or even the proposed Mission: Space full pavilion). Or if JII had the original planned drops? Or if the Mt. Fuji coaster had been built, the original WoM pavilions, many of the World Showcase attractions that got scrapped , like the UK boat ride - if we'd even be having this conversation today? Would the expanded set of attractions and attraction types have made a difference and added some variety to those who weren't fans of omnimover dark rides?

 

[Bocabear]

But the decadal refreshes weren't meant to be complete teardowns and redos - they were meant to be updates to keep the content fresh. Spaceship Earth worked in this regards... So did The Land. Journey Into Imagination would probably have been best served by plussing it a little rather than a complete redo into the awful attraction that followed. UoE would have been better updating the films but keeping the general attraction intact. Horizons could have easily been updated in a similar manner to SSE. I think the mistake they made was assuming that each attraction did need a major overhaul. Refreshes every 10 years, then add-on new attractions over time. Imagine the Motion pavillion if they had added Test Track to WoM rather than replaced it (which I believe the original plan for the pavillion was to have both types of attractions).



I do wonder about this in regards to the canceled Epcot attractions, if some of them had been built if the criticism that the park only had one type of ride would have been muted (which is a bit unfair criticism in my view, but it's an argument that people make). For example, if the original Space pavilion had been built (or even the proposed Mission: Space full pavilion). Or if JII had the original planned drops? Or if the Mt. Fuji coaster had been built, the original WoM pavilions, many of the World Showcase attractions that got scrapped , like the UK boat ride - if we'd even be having this conversation today? Would the expanded set of attractions and attraction types have made a difference and added some variety to those who weren't fans of omnimover dark rides?

ABSOLUTELY! Their own cost-cutting measures caused the park to become stale...Closing attractions in a park that does not really have that many attractions is always going to cause problems... If they had put all the planned attractions around world showcase, then absolutely yes...the park would have never felt lacking or stale...

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

You’re still asking if additions helped fix a park that was struggling. The 80s additions did move the needle by increasing visitation and therefore increasing the profitability the park had experienced from the beginning. Those additions though also got quickly followed by a slowing economy (nobody declares the Magic Kingdom a failure because attendance dropped off during the OPEC embargo) and Euro Disney. By the time the updates came due the parks were under tight constraints that would only get worse over the next decade.

 

[sedati]

A successfully designed park should be able to sit on it's laurels if need be.
Most everything in the Magic Kingdom could ride out any storm with simple upkeep. Any addition is just that, an addition.
The Magic Kingdom is like a cactus- just give it the barest of attention and it will thrive.
1/2 of EPCOT wilts without constant attention.
That isn't good and it isn't sustainable.

 

[Rich Brownn]

ABSOLUTELY! Their own cost-cutting measures caused the park to become stale...Closing attractions in a park that does not really have that many attractions is always going to cause problems... If they had put all the planned attractions around world showcase, then absolutely yes...the park would have never felt lacking or stale...

The park didn't need as many originally because the rides were so long. If you added Energy, WoM, Horizons, and WoL (with shows and exhibits) you were spending 2 - 2 1/2 hours just in rides and shows... not even counting wait times. Now with GoTG (We'll be generous and give it 10 minutes with pre-shows), Space and TT its... 21 minutes... maybe.

 

[mikejs78]

A successfully designed park should be able to sit on it's laurels if need be.
Most everything in the Magic Kingdom could ride out any storm with simple upkeep. Any addition is just that, an addition.
The Magic Kingdom is like a cactus- just give it the barest of attention and it will thrive.
1/2 of EPCOT wilts without constant attention.
That isn't good and it isn't sustainable.

That's really not true based on the history of the park. Of the 23 opening day attractions at MK, 40% are no longer in existence (Penny Arcade, Main Street Cinema, Mike Fink Keelboats, Davy Crockett Explorer Canoes, Diamond Horseshoe Revue, Snow White's Adventures, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, Mickey Mouse Revue, and Skyway). If you look at the early Tomorrowland attractions, most are gone (Flight to the Moon, If You Had Wings, and America the Beautiful). While some attractions have withstood the test of time without much tinkering, others have gone through several iterations, and others have lacked significantly needed maitnenance (I'm looking at you Space Mountain), and others could use significant plussing ( BTMR, PPF)... To say that MK has just had the barest of attention over the years is revisionist history.

 

[HauntedPirate]

The park didn't need as many originally because the rides were so long. If you added Energy, WoM, Horizons, and WoL (with shows and exhibits) you were spending 2 - 2 1/2 hours just in rides and shows... not even counting wait times. Now with GoTG (We'll be generous and give it 10 minutes with pre-shows), Space and TT its... 21 minutes... maybe.

"But those rides were so booorrrinnnggg..."

I honestly believe that most guests these days leave their brains at home and once they enter the parks, they want only thrills. Nothing inspirational, nothing requiring thought, just thrill rides. And Chapek and his minions are right there wanting to give that to them, catering wholeheartedly to that lowest common denominator while charging them a small fortune for it.

 

[mikejs78]

"But those rides were so booorrrinnnggg..."

I honestly believe that most guests these days leave their brains at home and once they enter the parks, they want only thrills. Nothing inspirational, nothing requiring thought, just thrill rides. And Chapek and his minions are right there wanting to give that to them, catering wholeheartedly to that lowest common denominator while charging them a small fortune for it.

If that were the case, Disney wouldn't be as popular as it is, as there are definitely other parks that do thrills better than Disney.

 

[HauntedPirate]

If that were the case, Disney wouldn't be as popular as it is, as there are definitely other parks that do thrills better than Disney.

I agree. Remember, though, that they're drawing on decades of goodwill and nostalgia in doing that. Our kids have been on innumerable trips over the past 17 years, but will they do the same with their kids? I highly doubt it. Even they have mentioned, unprompted, many of the things that I've said in these forums over the years. Prices are getting ridiculously high. Food isn't that good anymore. New stuff isn't up to the same level with what they've ripped out.

 

[wdisney9000]

I can't like this post enough.

Size? I don't want to tour a single park the size of 4 TPFKaEPCOT. Everything else I tend to agree with though.

Not sure I follow what you mean in regards to size? Just want to clarify, not being a wise .

 

[Missing20K]

Not sure I follow what you mean in regards to size? Just want to clarify, not being a wise ****.

A reason other than differing themes for having multiple parks. The parks, square footage wise, are about as large as I'd like to see them. They just need to fill in the gaps, so to speak.