COP updates continue

[speck76]

That is an example of the non-constructive, unnecessarily hurtful statement that serves no useful purpose. People who have that opinion already think so.

I happen to agree with most of the pro-COP sentiment, but I am NOT out the door... and I am anything but BS. I understand the issues that make COP a "problem" (automatically dated; yet understanding COP itself helps explain why EPCOT and WDW exist in the first place, ... etc....).

I enjoy hearing from both sides, and even having a lot of fun at each other's (benign) expense, but come on. The people who are against COP (and Griz for that matter) can seem just as much like a broken record as they complain that he sounded....

I find it unfortunate that the tone around here gets to the point sometimes that people feel, as they have in other posts above, that if they say something traditional, etc., they will be called BS and feel like they have to put something like, "now ducks as he awaits bricks thrown at him" at the end of their posts. Even these backhanded bricks.

It is much better when the debate is about the subject and not the people. (Even if it has been debated before.... new people join every day. The whole "do a search" comment drives me nuts, unless it is written in a helpful context. Too many times, I think we drive away people with derisive remarks that make them feel small if they don't know the rules or know as much about Disney as some of the regular posters.) We learn more when we bring in all sides, and treat each other with respect.

Speck, I like to read your comments, even when I disagree. They make me think. But please refrain from being so bullish and painting with such a broad brush.

Paul

I see nothing wrong with the statement. You can be pro-COP, or any other attraction, and not be full of crap......unfortunately, some people that are no longer posting here did not see how this was possible. On top of that, if these people are really fans of Disney, and supportive of Disney, they would see why, if COP was removed, it would be for the betterment of the park and company. I am certainly not a fan of classic attractions going away, but when they have outlived their usefullness, it is time to say good-bye....as bittersweet as it may be.

I do not see why "fans" want the company to die on the sword to save attractions that, if they were actually an important asset of the park, would not need to be saved in the first place.

BTW....the same people that say do a search seem to be the first to complain when old threads are brought back to life......if people are searching, old threads will come back to life.....

 

[prberk]

I see nothing wrong with the statement. You can be pro-COP, or any other attraction, and not be full of crap......unfortunately, some people that are no longer posting here did not see how this was possible. On top of that, if these people are really fans of Disney, and supportive of Disney, they would see why, if COP was removed, it would be for the betterment of the park and company. I am certainly not a fan of classic attractions going away, but when they have outlived their usefullness, it is time to say good-bye....as bittersweet as it may be.

I do not see why "fans" want the company to die on the sword to save attractions that, if they were actually an important asset of the park, would not need to be saved in the first place.

BTW....the same people that say do a search seem to be the first to complain when old threads are brought back to life......if people are searching, old threads will come back to life.....

Yeah, you are probably right on that last statement. Neither complaint is very likely to be welcoming to newcomers or foster new ideas.

Anyhow, well you know how I feel. I don't think Griz was full of crap. A little high-strung, maybe. And maybe even wrong sometimes (who knows how often), but also right sometimes. We all fit into that category, by degrees. But he was not disrespectful. I just want to encourage an environment that's fun and informative, without personally damning statements. The facts (and opinions) can speak for themselves.

As for COP itself, it had the most impact on me of any of the older attractions, and many of my younger friends have also liked it. It still entertains, but most of all it gives a perspective that, for me, explains what the heck Walt might have meant in coming up with EPCOT or WDW in the first place. So, I think understanding CoP and its history is instrumental in understanding the whole place. Do most people get that? No. But does it still entertain and reach audiences of all ages? Yes.

My position is that, just as Walt liked a balance between excitement for the future (Tomorrowland) and reverence for the past (Frontierland), this attraction (and, by extension, Walt Disney World itself) can best be served by totally re-doing it. I have stated before that a new, non-moving walk-through area could be done outside the carousel that would challenge us to look to the future, with any number of ideas and ways to do it. Build it out into the stage show area that is next door. Either that or move and rebuild the whole thing with new scenes altogether in EPCOT. Just keep the idea alive, in an updated fashion.

My two cents.

Paul

 

[Tim G]

I see nothing wrong with the statement. You can be pro-COP, or any other attraction, and not be full of crap......unfortunately, some people that are no longer posting here did not see how this was possible. On top of that, if these people are really fans of Disney, and supportive of Disney, they would see why, if COP was removed, it would be for the betterment of the park and company. I am certainly not a fan of classic attractions going away, but when they have outlived their usefullness, it is time to say good-bye....as bittersweet as it may be.

I do not see why "fans" want the company to die on the sword to save attractions that, if they were actually an important asset of the park, would not need to be saved in the first place.

BTW....the same people that say do a search seem to be the first to complain when old threads are brought back to life......if people are searching, old threads will come back to life.....

I always knew there would come a time that you would see the light...

 

[Woody13]

I don't think Griz was full of crap. A little high-strung, maybe. And maybe even wrong sometimes (who knows how often), but also right sometimes. We all fit into that category, by degrees.

Paul, I tend to agree with your post but I also know the explanation behind Speck's comment. As concerns CoP, Grizz made a lot statements that he just couldn't back up. I suppose Grizz thought that no one would call upon him to provide any verification. Grizz posted on several occasions (herewith paraphrased) that CoP was the only attraction that Walt wanted to keep in his park(s) for perpetuity.

I knew from the instant I read that post by Grizz that his statement was totally false. I asked Grizz to provide some proof. All Grizz did at that point was muddle around the issue and say that he could not reveal his source. He went on to say that he was seeking permission from his source to provide the proof. Well, Grizz never provided one bit of proof to substantiate his statement. The reason is obvious. No such proof exists.

Now, that was just one example. There are many others. Grizz did more than express his opinions about TWDC, he fabricated information to suit his vision of what he thought TWDC was doing wrong. He made things up and attempted to pass it along as fact. There is a big difference between making an honest mistake and just making things up.

Many members on this board got fed up with his repeated failure to verify his "facts". Grizz has stated that by profession, he is an educator. If that is true, then I hope the Lord saves the students in his classes.

 

[speck76]

I wont pick you apart....because you are actually one of the more open-minded and eduacated members around here.....but I did notice a few comments that are not very strong

As for COP itself, it had the most impact on me of any of the older attractions, and many of my younger friends have also liked it. It still entertains, but most of all it gives a perspective that, for me, explains what the heck Walt might have meant in coming up with EPCOT or WDW in the first place. So, I think understanding CoP and its history is instrumental in understanding the whole place. Do most people get that? No. But does it still entertain and reach audiences of all ages? Yes.

I agree on the non-bolded areas......but the bolded areas are speculation.

As for my own speculation.
I agree with the speculation that most people do not "get it". It seems that most visitors are in for the quick thrill.....COP, UoE....they are just "too long" for most people. I have never understood this POV, as I feel a 20 (or 45 in UoE's case) minute attraction is a great break in the day.....an extended period out of the heat....a time to relax. ....but do people pay $60 to relax. Vacations are supposed to be relaxing, so why are visitors to WDW so high-strung? How many times have you seen parents screaming or beating their kids? I also feel that most visitors are no longer interested in edutainment, especially when the education element is stronger than the entertainment value. (I feel this was the downfall of the original EPCOT Center) Now, entertainment is high subjective, based on someone's personal tastes.....but IMO the vast majority of people no longer want to watch talking mannequins explain progress. It is not unique to COP or WDW......movie admissions have been down significantly the last few years, as has attendance for many major sports.....people no longer want ot be in the crowd....people are no longer wanting to be a casual observer....they want to be part of the action.

My position is that, just as Walt liked a balance between excitement for the future (Tomorrowland) and reverence for the past (Frontierland), this attraction can best be served by totally re-doing it. I have stated before that a new, non-moving walk-through area could be done outside the carousel that would challenge us to look to the future, with any number of ideas and ways to do it. Build it out into the stage show area that is next door. Either that or move and rebuild the whole thing with new scenes altogether in EPCOT. Just keep the idea alive, in an updated fashion.

My two cents.

Paul

While I know this comment will tick off many people....I do not personally think that "Walt's visions and wants" are valid in this age. The world has changed since Walt died 37 years ago. Kids are not the same, adults are not the same, families are not the same, and tastes are not the same. I am not saying they should change the name of the company.....but the company has to grow, it has to adapt, and it has to stay on the cutting edge, like it was when Walt was alive.

 

[speck76]

I always knew there would come a time that you would see the light...

me?......I am the light :lol:

 

[speck76]

I knew from the instant I read that post by Grizz that his statement was totally false. I asked Grizz to provide some proof. All Grizz did at that point was muddle around the issue and say that he could not reveal his source. He went on to say that he was seeking permission from his source to provide the proof. Well, Grizz never provided one bit of proof to substantiate his statement. The reason is obvious. No such proof exists.

I remember that thread....and I always wondered why Grizz would have to get clearance to name a source for a comment made by Walt 40 years prior. :veryconfu

 

[Tim G]

It has been said before... If it's not growing, it's going to die.

And that time has come... IMO it came 2 years ago...



Best,

 

[speck76]

It has been said before... If it's not growing, it's going to die.

And that time has come... IMO it came 2 years ago...



Best,

Which begs another question....

WDW has added a lot over the last few years, but can that be considered growth?

I understand the park needs new "sexy" attractions to market, it keeps people coming to Orlando, and keeps me employed. But is there a difference between "adding attractions" and "growth"?

Growth, to me at least, would be new experiences.

Philharmagic is not a new experience...WDW has 3-D shows
LMAX is not a new experience...MGM has a stunt show
EE is not a new experience...WDW has rollercoasters

Soarin is a new experience
MS is a new experience
Buzz Lightyear was at that time a new experience

 

[Woody13]

Growth, to me at least, would be new experiences.

You forgot SGE, the best new attraction of them all! That lovable Stitch guy packs them in every day at the MK. Stitch is growth.

 

[Mr Bill]

You forgot SGE, the best new attraction of them all! That lovable Stitch guy packs them in every day at the MK. Stitch is growth.

And Chester and Hester keep Animal Kingdom crowded every day?

 

[Woody13]

And Chester and Hester keep Animal Kingdom crowded every day?

You're right! AK needs Stitch too.

 

[WDWScottieBoy]

My roommate works in operations in Tomorrowland and said that CoP has a positive future. I wouldn't sit here and say that they are working on the inside to fix it up, then take it all down for a new ride.

 

[MKCP 1985]

Hi guys, may I add a few thoughts? First, General Grizz must have been one very important forum member to get so much discussion of his persona after his presumed departure. He's never said he's gone for good, has he? Anyway, it makes me a little ill to see so many negative comments about the guy, and it is worse when the comments are not true. Specifically, post 86, he did NOT slam and flame people who disagreed with him. He was especially gracious to his detractors, and I respect that.

Secondly, on topic, when I was younger, I thought CoP was boring, but saw it many times with female friends (the things we do for . . . ) and endured it. Today, 20 years later, I think . . . its boring, but I go see it because it reminds me of the times I have seen it in years past. At $60 per ticket, I don't want too much nostalgia, that's for certain! Fair to say, this is a show which may not appeal to the masses, and its true audience TODAY may be those of the AARP demographic, and the occasional other person who posts in this thread. While an argument may be made that the Geritol crowd should have their own attraction in the Magic Kingdom, I will say that I have seen better attractions than CoP fall by the wayside already so if it goes, it goes. **shrug** I have seen nothing in the archives to support the notion that it above others must be preserved because of Walt Disney's intentions.

Finally, I would equate "growth" in the context speck76 described as "innovation." Although there are other "4-D" movies, I thought PhilharMagic was innovative. The other attractions listed meet that same definition, to me, and make me want to return (not Stitch - sorry Woody), as does Expedition:Everest, opening next year. So, as far as Walt Disney World is concerned, I see growth as that term is used in this thread. Focusing only on the Magic Kingdom, I see evolution toward marketing to families with elementary school aged kids. Honestly, I don't think they seriously even want teenagers to be drawn there anymore. "On your 13th birthday, you shall be banished, until the day you return with an ankle biter in a stroller - until then, we'll see you at the Studios or Animal Kingdom." (Of course, all it would take would be a serious E-ticket in Fantasyland and I'd change my mind.)

 

[speck76]

Finally, I would equate "growth" in the context speck76 described as "innovation." Although there are other "4-D" movies, I thought PhilharMagic was innovative. The other attractions listed meet that same definition, to me, and make me want to return (not Stitch - sorry Woody), as does Expedition:Everest, opening next year. So, as far as Walt Disney World is concerned, I see growth as that term is used in this thread.

Philharmagic was innovative, but IMO, it was not really, in the average guest's mind, an experience that they could not have already experienced in the other 3 parks.

IMO.....in the near term, WDW needs to add attractions, regardless of innovation level, to attract guests. It is fairly simple, and by what you wrote above, it is working. In the long term, WDW needs to provide new experiences, not jsut more of the same. Sure, the MK could add a new dark ride each year for the next 10, and in the short term, it would attract a lot more guests, but in the long term, the park would end up being saturated with dark rides.....and if dark rides were to fall out of favor with guests (as most technologies eventually do) the park would be in a very bad spot. If the parks "grow", and present new technologies (or new to WDW), the park ends up being more diverse. The biggest issue with old Epcot was that almost every ride was the same, story excluded. When peoples' attention spans no longer could comprehend the story, there was not much appeal on riding the "same ride" over and over.

Focusing only on the Magic Kingdom, I see evolution toward marketing to families with elementary school aged kids. Honestly, I don't think they seriously even want teenagers to be drawn there anymore. "On your 13th birthday, you shall be banished, until the day you return with an ankle biter in a stroller - until then, we'll see you at the Studios or Animal Kingdom." (Of course, all it would take would be a serious E-ticket in Fantasyland and I'd change my mind.)

That is probably not far from the truth....but I do not really see it as a bad thing either. Much like the rides, the parks have a target and secondary audiance. Epcot is not really seeking the families or teens with the food and wine festival....which is all for the better. MK is not really seeking adults or teens with the Not-so-scary Halloween party....and that is not bad either.

 

[Brian_B]

Maybe the shift in management will see more coherent days for the Magic Kingdom...

- Brian

 

[Mr. Eggz]

So, why do so many people give D-troops such a hard time? They are trying to do something good. They are a consumer advocate group (or guest-advocate group to use the proper term). They are giving voice to an underepresented segment of WDW's guest base. TWDC goes strictly by the numbers these days, they do not take into consideration the special value it adds to the overall WDW experience for this minority within their customer base. D-troops gives that minority a voice.

I'd like to point out that once WDW anounces that they are closing CoP, it will be too late. By that time, too much time and money will be invested in the project to stop it. So, whether you believe D-troops or not (I do), if you care about CoP and want it to stay, now is the time to write WDW management and tell them how much the attraction means to you.

 

[speck76]

So, why do so many people give D-troops such a hard time? They are trying to do something good. They are a consumer advocate group (or guest-advocate group to use the proper term). They are giving voice to an underepresented segment of WDW's guest base. TWDC goes strictly by the numbers these days, they do not take into consideration the special value it adds to the overall WDW experience for this minority within their customer base. D-troops gives that minority a voice.

I'd like to point out that once WDW anounces that they are closing CoP, it will be too late. By that time, too much time and money will be invested in the project to stop it. So, whether you believe D-troops or not (I do), if you care about CoP and want it to stay, now is the time to write WDW management and tell them how much the attraction means to you.

Good for who?......Good for the park.....no......Good for the average guest......not really......good for themselves......yes.

Is the minority's voice so important? Should WDW cater to such a small percentage of the visitors, and ignore the masses?

The overhead at WDW is too high to let it become a museum of has-been attractions. D-troops complains when the older, less visited attractions get closed, or are rumored to close. They complain when prices get raised, they complain when cutbacks happen, yet they never comprehend that WDC is a business, and their job is to make money.....and they do not make money by keeping around attractions that do not draw the masses to the parks. Instead, they bring back ignorant comments like "Walt never cared about profit....blah blah blah"

 

[Mr. Eggz]

Good for who?......Good for the park.....no......Good for the average guest......not really......good for themselves......yes.

Is the minority's voice so important? Should WDW cater to such a small percentage of the visitors, and ignore the masses?

The overhead at WDW is too high to let it become a museum of has-been attractions. D-troops complains when the older, less visited attractions get closed, or are rumored to close. They complain when prices get raised, they complain when cutbacks happen, yet they never comprehend that WDC is a business, and their job is to make money.....and they do not make money by keeping around attractions that do not draw the masses to the parks. Instead, they bring back ignorant comments like "Walt never cared about profit....blah blah blah"

WDW has, in the past, been able to satisfy a vast and varied audience. If they had not, they would not be the successful business they are today. If they want to stay successful, they will need to remember how to do this. Each division of TWDC has the stated goal of growing by 20% every year. This is a vary ambitious goal. They can not afford to alienate any of their audience.

If WDW can remember how to please those who want optimistic musical audio-animatronics shows, and those who do not, it will be a much better run business. It is possible to keep CoP (hopefully with much-needed updating) and continue to add new attractions.

Yes, overhead is a concern, which is why attractions are closed all the time. But a well run business would be able to weigh the cost of the overhead against the cost of alienating a segment of their audience, and make the right decision.

Speck, the world does not function on a zero-sum rule. One person does not need to be hurt for another to gain; if you believe this, you have serious problems that needs to be addressed.

 

[speck76]

WDW has, in the past, been able to satisfy a vast and varied audience. If they had not, they would not be the successful business they are today. If they want to stay successful, they will need to remember how to do this. Each division of TWDC has the stated goal of growing by 20% every year. This is a vary ambitious goal. They can not afford to alienate any of their audience.

If WDW can remember how to please those who want optimistic musical audio-animatronics shows, and those who do not, it will be a much better run business. It is possible to keep CoP (hopefully with much-needed updating) and continue to add new attractions.

Yes, overhead is a concern, which is why attractions are closed all the time. But a well run business would be able to weigh the cost of the overhead against the cost of alienating a segment of their audience, and make the right decision.

Speck, the world does not function on a zero-sum rule. One person does not need to be hurt for another to gain; if you believe this, you have serious problems that needs to be addressed.

If alienating a very small audiance will cause greater gains in the masses, it is overall a big plus for the company.

When WDFA stopped producing "traditional" animated films, they did so figuring that the gains from producing CGI films would be greater than the losses of no longer producing films of the traditional style. They had to realize that there will be some purists that will no longer view their new films, but at the same time, the volume of these purists is so small, it is not a significant factor. This is no different.

And no.....this is not zero-sum.....the overall gains from replacing COP would probably be greater than the losses.