Bob Chapek Confirms Disney Will Overhaul Epcot

[mikejs78]

You’re “millennializing” this...aka misreading it 100%.

There isn’t a stodgy subset of fans that refuse to like Epcot unless they rebuild horizons...you’re way off.

All Epcot fans will embrace any quality attractions That follow a loose central theme...even if it’s more broad. That is not guardians of the galaxy...a particularly stupid comic book franchise

My only point of disagreement with you is your assessment of Guardians as a franchise. Presonally I think it's rather brilliant, and I would love to see it represented in the parks.

Just not in Epcot. Doesn't belong there.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

My only point of disagreement with you is your assessment of Guardians as a franchise. Presonally I think it's rather brilliant, and I would love to see it represented in the parks.

Just not in Epcot. Doesn't belong there.

Well that’s a different conversation

It provides no educational tie in...which Is why it’s “stupid”. All things Epcot should have a plausible angle. That isn’t asking too much

 

[mikejs78]

Well that’s a different conversation

It provides no educational tie in...which Is why it’s “stupid”. All things Epcot should have a plausible angle. That isn’t asking too much

Sure. In that context, we agree.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I love how some of you fancy yourselves intellectuals over Epcot.

 

[larryz]

Just like how all behavior if done by humans to humans must be considered Humane.

Right?

Maybe you should look up the definition of "humane."
Things people do are rightly considered human behavior, and one potential spectrum runs from "humane" to "inhumane."

Just as behavior is judged by what it is, so Epcot is judged by what it is.

 

[phillip9698]

Epcot has a large fan base of Disney loyalists who are begging for it to be given the care and attention to detail that will restore it to a semblance of its first 20 years.

You don’t need to look deeper or interpret...that is what’s going on.

A large fan base and the "biggest fan base of all the parks" are two completely different statements.

 

[discott99]

I need to preface this by stating that I am a huge fan of what EPCOT Center had to offer back in the 80s and early 90s; the attractions and experiences were novel and incredibly well designed. What we need to understand, however, is that these experiences are never returning. Ever.
The fact is, Disney is a multi-billion dollar corporation, and their primary interest is maximizing profit; that's about it. Everything else, like customer satisfaction, design, and creativity, comes second. The harsh reality is, when boiled down, creativity from WDI is simply a tool to maximize profit.
When Walt Disney founded Disneyland, I'm sure that his intentions to create a family-friendly destination that could thoroughly be enjoyed were genuine. Let's not forget, however, that Walt Disney was indeed a businessman and a good one at that. Walt's corporate mission can really be condensed down to this: give the masses what they want. If the masses with wallets demand it, build it. Guests wanted thrills, so what did Walt do? He built the Matterhorn.
Indeed, many people would pay good money to see EPCOT Center return to its former state. However, this number is simply not large enough to sustain a massive theme park. Disney is going to be putting IP's in Epcot, and that's final. Why? It's because they masses recognize these properties in the mainstream. Frozen replaced Maelstrom because Frozen made a boatload of cash and sells tons of toys; that's about all the justification Disney needs as a corporation to make such a decision.
The argument that Disney needs to remain true to the mission statement of EPCOT Center is admirable but quite naive. Again, the reality is, no company looking to maximize profit will forgo opportunities to do so. Moreover, such a company would never do things to hinder profit maximization, and bringing back fairly unmarketable and unrecognizable experiences would do just that.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I love how some of you fancy yourselves intellectuals over Epcot.

...that’s very similar to when I love people embarrassing themselves defending something they have no real reason to defend.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

A large fan base and the "biggest fan base of all the parks" are two completely different statements.

I’m sorry...I missed what your point is attempting to be??

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Two kids I know aged 8 and 6 are studying countries around the world in school. They are really looking forward to World Showcase when they visit WDW for the first time in the Fall.

 

[PizzaPlanet]

Two kids I know aged 8 and 6 are studying countries around the world in school. They are really looking forward to World Showcase when they visit WDW for the first time in the Fall.

They will be surprised to discover that Elsa and Anna live in Norway. I bet they don't teach that in school.

 

[mikejs78]

I need to preface this by stating that I am a huge fan of what EPCOT Center had to offer back in the 80s and early 90s; the attractions and experiences were novel and incredibly well designed. What we need to understand, however, is that these experiences are never returning. Ever.
The fact is, Disney is a multi-billion dollar corporation, and their primary interest is maximizing profit; that's about it. Everything else, like customer satisfaction, design, and creativity, comes second. The harsh reality is, when boiled down, creativity from WDI is simply a tool to maximize profit.
When Walt Disney founded Disneyland, I'm sure that his intentions to create a family-friendly destination that could thoroughly be enjoyed were genuine. Let's not forget, however, that Walt Disney was indeed a businessman and a good one at that. Walt's corporate mission can really be condensed down to this: give the masses what they want. If the masses with wallets demand it, build it. Guests wanted thrills, so what did Walt do? He built the Matterhorn.
Indeed, many people would pay good money to see EPCOT Center return to its former state. However, this number is simply not large enough to sustain a massive theme park. Disney is going to be putting IP's in Epcot, and that's final. Why? It's because they masses recognize these properties in the mainstream. Frozen replaced Maelstrom because Frozen made a boatload of cash and sells tons of toys; that's about all the justification Disney needs as a corporation to make such a decision.
The argument that Disney needs to remain true to the mission statement of EPCOT Center is admirable but quite naive. Again, the reality is, no company looking to maximize profit will forgo opportunities to do so. Moreover, such a company would never do things to hinder profit maximization, and bringing back fairly unmarketable and unrecognizable experiences would do just that.

And it's a shortsighted decision. Properties come and go, and not all have staying power. Tying attractions to IPs that may or may not have staying power is risky, as you risk having an irrelevant attraction in a short time frame. Case in point: Imagination. The whole imagination institute is based on Honey I Shrunk the Kids. Now, how many millennials know that property? For Frozen and Guardians, it's hard to say if they will stand the test of time. Even FEA is showing softness with wait times far lower than they were a year ago.

Now, sometimes an attraction or land can transcend its IP (see Pandora). But with FEA and Nemo, that certainly isn't the case, and with Guardians it remains to be seen. But suffice to say, I would argue that the current planned direction of Epcot is not a good business decision - it's shortsighted and will not stand the test of time. It will make the old Epcot Center feel timeless in comparison.

 

[discott99]

And it's a shortsighted decision. Properties come and go, and not all have staying power. Tying attractions to IPs that may or may not have staying power is risky, as you risk having an irrelevant attraction in a short time frame. Case in point: Imagination. The whole imagination institute is based on Honey I Shrunk the Kids. Now, how many millennials know that property? For Frozen and Guardians, it's hard to say if they will stand the test of time. Even FEA is showing softness with wait times far lower than they were a year ago.

Now, sometimes an attraction or land can transcend its IP (see Pandora). But with FEA and Nemo, that certainly isn't the case, and with Guardians it remains to be seen. But suffice to say, I would argue that the current planned direction of Epcot is not a good business decision - it's shortsighted and will not stand the test of time. It will make the old Epcot Center feel timeless in comparison.

You make a valid point regarding the longevity of out of park IP's; it's very hard to say how long they'll remain popular. However, I think that Disney is at least competent enough to roughly estimate whether or not a property has staying power. If it is the case that a property like Frozen becomes unpopular to the point of being unmarketable, then Disney will probably nix and replace the attraction. In fact, this is exactly what they did at Imagination with HISTA. Yes, the Imagination Institute is still present in the ride itself, but it really isn't crucial to know that it is connected to the HISTK property. Why did Disney remove HISTA and its references? Because it was no longer marketable. Now, I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing as it shows a lack of ability on the company's part to create resonating properties in the current era. What I am saying, however, is that this is the future whether we like it or not.

Regarding the idea of timelessness, I think we need to be careful about how we use the word. The message of EPCOT Center and its attractions is indeed timeless. Using your imagination, working towards a better tomorrow, conserving the land and seas, etc. all stand the test of time as great and inspiring ideas. These messages, however, just aren't marketable to the masses. Sure, we'll buy into a park dedicated to these ideas, but the Smith family of four from Small Town USA probably won't. The properties "timeless" to the company are those that create residual profit for decades; this includes the animated classics and the marquee Pixar films. Of course, there are outliers, but it's just not enough.

On a side note, the point of my post wasn't to upset anyone or discredit EPCOT Center and what it had to offer. The goal of my post was to kind of say that it's time to move on from the belief that EPCOT as we know it is coming back and turn our hopes to different things in the parks. Instead of holding out for a physical return to the past in the parks, we should continue to expand on sharing old experiences at EPCOT Center within our community, like marni1971 and so many others do.

 

[geekza]

Case in point: Imagination. The whole imagination institute is based on Honey I Shrunk the Kids.

Even worse, it's just as much tied into the crappy remake of The Absent Minded Professor. Who remembers Flubber these days?

My wife, a first-timer to any Disney park, absolutely loved Epcot... except for much of Future World. She loved Spaceship Earth, Soarin' (which, honestly, has nothing to do with the pavilion in which it's located, but is a great attraction), and even Living with the Land, though she felt it seemed kind of empty in the greenhouses. She thought Mission: Space was a fun thrill, as did I, but nothing special, thought Test Track was a bore, cursed me midway through JOIWF, whispering, "This is awful," and didn't even want to bother going on the Nemo ride. To her, Future World was where you walked through in order to get to World Showcase. We got stopped to answer a survey specifically about Future World while we were in Epcot one day. Man, oh, man, did they pick the wrong people to ask if they were looking for positive feedback. lol. I did put in my two cents that I thought that Spaceship Earth was still spectacular and was, far and away, the best thing about Future World. My opinion may not matter much in the end, but at least I got to voice it officially.

 

[sedati]

And it's a shortsighted decision. Properties come and go, and not all have staying power. Tying attractions to IPs that may or may not have staying power is risky, as you risk having an irrelevant attraction in a short time frame.

For any other company, yes. But the bedrock of Disney's success has been keeping their characters and stories going over generations. Part of how they do this is corporate cross-pollination.

 

[geekza]

These messages, however, just aren't marketable to the masses. Sure, we'll buy into a park dedicated to these ideas, but the Smith family of four from Small Town USA probably won't.

I don't know that I agree with that. The popularity of shows like Cosmos and the BBC Nature documentaries demonstrate that non-fiction topics can be entertaining as well as informative. Attractions in the mold of EPCOT Center could be just as popular as anything in current Epcot if they are creative, artistic, and fun. It takes more effort and skill than plopping down a roller coaster, which is why they don't bother. Iger and Chapek don't want to take risks because, frankly, they don't give a rat's patootie about the parks as laboratories of innovation and creativity. They are revenue streams and nothing else. It is what it is, but that doesn't make it any less of a loss to the world. I stand by my assertion that current Disney management could not build a successful theme park from scratch that would have the cultural impact and ongoing legacy that Disneyland, the Magic Kingdom, and EPCOT Center do and did. They are vultures, feeding off the rapidly-decaying carcass of a once-mighty beast. Eventually, there won't be any meat left.

 

[MuteSuperstar]

Using your imagination, working towards a better tomorrow, conserving the land and seas, etc. all stand the test of time as great and inspiring ideas. These messages, however, just aren't marketable to the masses.

You're right, and what a profoundly sad statement on how far American culture has devolved since the 80s.

 

[discott99]

I don't know that I agree with that. The popularity of shows like Cosmos and the BBC Nature documentaries demonstrate that non-fiction topics can be entertaining as well as informative. Attractions in the mold of EPCOT Center could be just as popular as anything in current Epcot if they are creative, artistic, and fun. It takes more effort and skill than plopping down a roller coaster, which is why they don't bother. Iger and Chapek don't want to take risks because, frankly, they don't give a rat's patootie about the parks as laboratories of innovation and creativity. They are revenue streams and nothing else. It is what it is, but that doesn't make it any less of a loss to the world. I stand by my assertion that current Disney management could not build a successful theme park from scratch that would have the cultural impact and ongoing legacy that Disneyland, the Magic Kingdom, and EPCOT Center do and did. They are vultures, feeding off the rapidly-decaying carcass of a once-mighty beast. Eventually, there won't be any meat left.

I agree that the current corporate administration of Disney is creatively bankrupt and inept. This is yet another reason why we will never see a return to form at EPCOT Center. With regards to those educational documentaries and shows you’ve referenced, although they may be relatively successful as television programs, I doubt they’d be successful when translated into theme park form. And again, going off of what you said, they could at least turn some heads to the park if they were done very well like in the past, but we’ve established that this will likely never happen.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

For any other company, yes. But the bedrock of Disney's success has been keeping their characters and stories going over generations. Part of how they do this is corporate cross-pollination.

I think this management has proven that they ARE NOT good at this...

Frozen...was a mistake. Take the snowman away and the reality is that property will not have the legs that a little mermaid or beauty and the beast will.

It kinda a silly concept...and while wildly popular at the time it was released due to a renewed desire for princesses...its popularity has slid dramatically in MY OPINION. It is still a marketable franchise but not moving upward by any stretch. And this sequel does not appear to be going well. It’s taking forever.

So they anchored an old ride to that IP and built a meet and greet add on to the pavilion. That was DUMB. Is anyone gonna be into that in 10 years? Serious doubts.

 

[discott99]

You're right, and what a profoundly sad statement on how far American culture has devolved since the 80s.

It is indeed a sad assessment of our society, but unfortunately quick cash grabs and shallow stories are what makes Disney money.