mikejs78
Premium Member
The organization of the city was the prototype. Not necessarily all aspects of it.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Bob Chapek Confirms Disney Will Overhaul Epcot
- Thread starter Bacon
- Start date
flynnibus
Premium Member
Or as you two talk past each other...
You can have a 'protyotype' deployment without using actual prototype products. Your first or early deployment is often considered a trial or prototype. But classically actual prototype PRODUCTS don't get used outside of direct testing by the company or it's vendors.
You can have a 'protyotype' deployment without using actual prototype products. Your first or early deployment is often considered a trial or prototype. But classically actual prototype PRODUCTS don't get used outside of direct testing by the company or it's vendors.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
That pretty much sums up me wife in the morning. -_-
#HeMan #FeminismisDead #OhBummerSheReadsHereToo
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
The mistake with the original EPCOT Center was not understanding that Disney fans expect characters. The themes probably painted them in a corner in the sense that they don't necessarily lend themselves to easy expansion with characters without diluting the theming.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
The thing with IP based attractions is you never know why people are lining up for them. Are they lining up because they like the movie Frozen or because it's a good ride? Recognizing those aren't the only two reasons some gets in line for a ride, I think the overall point is relevant.
Attractions tied to movies are easier to market. The decisions are largely based on the initial marketing push and not the long term "fit" or performance of the attraction. The long term concern is primarily their ability to depreciate the cost and draw crowds. The long term concern is exactly the same on a non-IP based attraction.
My objection is that aside from the initial marketing push, there's very little reason to break with the thematic integrity of an area. With Frozen, I almost understand it sadly because I'm sure the initial mandate was "what's the quickest way we can get Frozen into the parks". When you make decisions based on "the quickest way to do something" you're going to make poor decisions. When those decisions are likely going to last for 20+ years it's that much worse.
Well... original EPCOT was IP driven... by the corporate sponsors. Without them, would any of those big edutainment rides have been built?
Then there was the issue of upkeep. Showcases of modern technology grow stale and outdated. The World Fairs which EPCOT was emulating takes care of that by breaking down and re-opening every five to ten years later with new sponsors and brand new attractions featuring the brand new technological edge. Did anyone planning EPCOT also plan to scrap the attractions and build new ones in their places every 10 years like World Fairs do? Did they really think those pavilions were good to go for the next 50 years?
Or did anyone think that a sponsor would want to pay the sponsorship cost for 10, 20, 50 years? Or that the sponsor would have the cash to do so? Or even continue to exist (sorry, Kodak). Or pony up for expensive refurbs and updates?
Are there sponsors beating down the doors of Disney looking to pay a hundred million dollars for an edutainment attraction so they can put their name on it? Is Apple looking to create and sponsor a Personal Tech Pavilion (one that they'd have to update every 18 months)? Is Amazon looking to create and sponsor an Economics of Trade Pavilion?
And if sponsors aren't sponsoring them... then Disney has to sponsor the attractions. And if Disney's doing the sponsoring... well, they have a product to advertise... their established IPs.
Last edited:
twilight mitsuk
Well-Known Member
Same
Formerly the same with cop and old Tomorrowland’s
abaker1975
Active Member
You can be as high brow as you like but at the end of the day EPCOT is a theme park and needs to attract said crowd.
A true EPCOT would not make money and be a rich man's folly.
A true EPCOT would not make money and be a rich man's folly.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
And yet EPCOT Center attracted a crowd and made money...
abaker1975
Active Member
And still does today.
And to add to and echo that, the ignore problems and bandage rush EPCOT is the one struggling, not the well maintained one of a couple of decades prior.
Is the increasing lack of sponsors due to a lack of sponsors wanting to sponsor or Disney not wanting them anymore?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
And that beaten and bandaged park is still doing better than the parks it is now following.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The part that confuses me is.... there is no lack of people paying tens of millions just to put their name on some college level stadium and up.
I said long ago that Disney misread the problem of evolving appetite for sponsorships in the way Disney had approached Epcot with. But what is interesting is if you look at other examples in the castle parks... Disney scales it way back and doesn’t put the attraction solely on the sponsors back. Yet at Epcot, even to this day, they still lean that way heavily.
Sponsors are still welcome. We’d have a Japan attraction and a new Imagination if they’d signed up.
rle4lunch
Well-Known Member
do you think that's because it was supposed to mimic a world expo type vibe, where every exhibit is sponsored by a corresponding industry that *could* or *is* involved in developing whatever the attraction is showcasing?
flynnibus
Premium Member
No - I think Disney just didn’t want to pay for it all themselves. Based on the idea of holding back refurbs, operating hours, etc until sponsors were secured.
rle4lunch
Well-Known Member
it's not a dumb idea. just frustrating for the regular park visitor(s) who want and expect something fresh when they visit.
geekza
Well-Known Member
Well, they were still going on the idea that, if you want to go overboard with spending, corporate sponsors can help fund that. Disneyland had to get corporate sponsors to be built and the MK had corporate sponsorship as well. You have to remember that EPCOT Center was, like Disneyland before it, a completely new concept. Yes, it was modeled after World's Fairs of the past, but nobody had ever built anything on this scale, especially someplace that was meant to be permanent. To the credit of the folks in charge when EPCOT Center was built, the result exceeded the expectations of nearly everyone. It was a true technological and design showplace unlike anything else on Earth. Where the problems arose is when it became apparent that, in order to remain a technological showplace, it would have to be updated on a much shorter timeline than Disneyland or the MK. The sponsors didn't see the kind of return on their investment that they had hoped, so some dropped out and had to be replaced, some who stayed demanded drastically different or even brand new attractions for their money, and some pavilions lost sponsorship altogether. When you have that kind of chaos, combined with management who were entirely different than the folks who truly believed in the park, it starts to break down.
It's a mess, now, but boy, oh, boy was it something to behold during its heyday. If you didn't experience it, it's almost impossible to convey how wonderful it was.