Disney Parks Castles Being Removed From Property Entrance Arches

[Wilt Dasney]

You're right, you don't get Walt Disney World. If you think the castle and balloons and cartoon mice are the defining qualities of Walt Disney World, if you think that's what it's all about, you definitely don't get it.

If they're not "defining qualities" (Not "THE defining qualities" but qualities that help define the place), then what are they...and why are they there? If Disney wanted a giant nature preserve south of Orlando, they could have saved a ton of money on theme parks.

This is where some of your misconception stems from. First, EPCOT is the heart and soul of Walt Disney World. The Magic Kingdom was always just a weenie to get people interested in the property as a whole.

Prior to 1982, EPCOT was an idea in a file cabinet. Throughout the 1970s, there was one reason most people went to WDW and that was to see MK. When you look at the giant photo spreads from opening day in magazines of the time, what do you see? A few shots of the Seven Seas Lagoon and the resorts, and a whole lot of Cinderella Castle and the Three Little Pigs walking around. That's what was promoted; that's why people went. It was Disneyland without the city right outside the walls.

I understand that Walt's EPCOT was part of the reason for buying the land, but that idea died with him. Giving Epcot (the park) the status of heart and soul of the property from anything but a geographic perspective strikes me as a little silly, I guess.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

The purple road signage came along around 1989, when you entered property the first road sign would have Mickey peeking over it, until the arches were built around 1996. You are correct in the rest of your post, however.

As I just looked up in "Since the World Began".

Thanks.

If they're not "defining qualities" (Not "THE defining qualities" but qualities that help define the place), then what are they...and why are they there? If Disney wanted a giant nature preserve south of Orlando, they could have saved a ton of money on theme parks.



Prior to 1982, EPCOT was an idea in a file cabinet. Throughout the 1970s, there was one reason most people went to WDW and that was to see MK. When you look at the giant photo spreads from opening day in magazines of the time, what do you see? A few shots of the Seven Seas Lagoon and the resorts, and a whole lot of Cinderella Castle and the Three Little Pigs walking around. That's what was promoted; that's why people went. It was Disneyland without the city right outside the walls.

I understand that Walt's EPCOT was part of the reason for buying the land, but that idea died with him. Giving Epcot (the park) the status of heart and soul of the property from anything but a geographic perspective strikes me as a little silly, I guess.

I beg to differ, my friend.

:lookaroun

E.P.C.O.T. City was the reason for WDW. Walt wanted his Prototype City to be built, but needed the place, and the revenue to do it. Buying land initially for a Disneyland East, as he called it, was the key to this. He said from the offset that "There would never be another Disneyland"...it's E.P.C.O.T. City that was the impedes for a new Magic Kingdom.

It's just that in a roundabout way that E.P.C.O.T. City became EPCOT Center, which embodies that concept in a theme park.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I beg to differ, my friend.

:lookaroun

E.P.C.O.T. City was the reason for WDW. Walt wanted his Prototype City to be built, but needed the place, and the revenue to do it. Buying land initially for a Disneyland East, as he called it, was the key to this. He said from the offset that "There would never be another Disneyland"...it's E.P.C.O.T. City that was the impedes for a new Magic Kingdom.

It's just that in a roundabout way that E.P.C.O.T. City became EPCOT Center, which embodies that concept in a theme park.

Yeah, we've traveled this road a few times. :lol:

E.P.C.O.T. is dead. EPCOT Center was a pale imitation of the original idea, and current Epcot is a watered-down version of that imitation. (Those aren't criticisms of the park on its own merits, simply a statement of how it compares to the ideas that preceded its different incarnations.)

It's a fun and nostalgic idea, but I just can't take seriously the notion that Epcot as it exists (and not as it was conceived) is the nerve center of WDW property.

Part of that is also the way the property has expanded. I love Epcot, but Animal Kingdom has ideas just as serious and relevant to humanity as Epcot does.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Yeah, we've traveled this road a few times. :lol:

E.P.C.O.T. is dead. EPCOT Center was a pale imitation of the original idea, and current Epcot is a watered-down version of that imitation. (Those aren't criticisms of the park on its own merits, simply a statement of how it compares to the ideas that preceded its different incarnations.)
I really do think that that is opinion there. In MY opinion, I see EPCOT Center as being a perfect MODEL of E.P.C.O.T. City, and in that embodying the idea that it was supposed to be. But the City? Yes, it's dead.
It's a fun and nostalgic idea, but I just can't take seriously the notion that Epcot as it exists (and not as it was conceived) is the nerve center of WDW property.Real nerve center, no....But Historical? Yes! It's the reason Disneyland East was thought up.

Part of that is also the way the property has expanded. I love Epcot, but Animal Kingdom has ideas just as serious and relevant to humanity as Epcot does.

Agree in full on DAK. Love it. It's cohesive. It's unique. It's grand in scale and in ideas.


It just needs more. :lol:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Real nerve center, no....But Historical? Yes! It's the reason Disneyland East was thought up.

That's what I'm getting at, I guess. Between 1982-1989ish, I can very easily see how EPCOT Center was at the heart of it all in a genuine way. It was a totally new idea for a theme park, it physically dwarfed the more juvenile MK, and it had some (even if tenuous) connection to the dream that caused Walt Disney to come to Florida. It even had a brand new, long distance monorail connection! Disney was obviously taking this EPCOT Center thing very seriously.

But prior to that, E.P.C.O.T. was just a vague notion that even Imagineering wasn't sure what to do with, so I stick with my statement that MK was the "heart and soul" of WDW property in the 1970s...regardless of what the ultimate plans for the property were.

And since the late '80s, the property has expanded massively at the same time that Epcot has toned down its own scope and grandeur. It's not even the largest park physically anymore. Those twin factors have made today's Epcot less central to the mission and purpose of WDW...IMO!

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

That's what I'm getting at, I guess. Between 1982-1989ish, I can very easily see how EPCOT Center was at the heart of it all in a genuine way. It was a totally new idea for a theme park, it physically dwarfed the more juvenile MK, and it had some (even if tenuous) connection to the dream that caused Walt Disney to come to Florida.
Exactly. Pitch perfect. :lol:
But prior to that, E.P.C.O.T. was just a vague notion that even Imagineering wasn't sure what to do with, so I stick with my statement that MK was the "heart and soul" of WDW property in the 1970s...regardless of what the ultimate plans for the property were.
Can't say I agree, but I can say that if you view MK as the "Heart and Soul" of WDW and a larger Disney expereince, perhaps it is EPCOT Center, with the driving force of E.P.C.O.T. City that is the brain and the thought behind it. Compromise? :lol:

And since the late '80s, the property has expanded massively at the same time that Epcot has toned down its own scope and grandeur. It's not even the largest park physically anymore. Those twin factors have made today's Epcot less central to the mission and purpose of WDW...IMO!

And that's exactly what's wrong with the park. By taking it's cohesiveness away, they also take away it's historical role in the Company and the Property...Bring that back. Make ALL the parks central to the mission...not just The Magic Kingdom, with it's princesses, pirates, and pixie dust.


.....and lurid, purple gates. With Castles on them.:lookaroun:lol:

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

This post is brought to you live from the WEDWay PeopleMover

If they're not "defining qualities" (Not "THE defining qualities" but qualities that help define the place), then what are they...and why are they there? If Disney wanted a giant nature preserve south of Orlando, they could have saved a ton of money on theme parks.

Those are just small parts of a much bigger whole. What The Vacation Kingdom of the World is all about is things like watching the activity at night around the Lagoon from the beach or Sunset Point at the Polynesian, having a campfire with friends at Fort Wilderness, casual shopping for pleasant little treasures at the Village Marketplace, taking a boat out to explore the intricate nooks and crannies of the waterways, discovering things you'd never expect. That's so abstract that the brainless executives and marketers of the modern Disney don't grasp it and handle the property properly. They just grab onto the obvious money makers like the characters and castles and 'wishes dreams magic' mentality and plug it ad nauseum. All of that stuff can be wonderful, but shouldn't overrule the rest of Walt Disney World, just exist alongside and work harmoniously with it. Difficult to put into words.

Prior to 1982, EPCOT was an idea in a file cabinet. Throughout the 1970s, there was one reason most people went to WDW and that was to see MK. When you look at the giant photo spreads from opening day in magazines of the time, what do you see? A few shots of the Seven Seas Lagoon and the resorts, and a whole lot of Cinderella Castle and the Three Little Pigs walking around. That's what was promoted; that's why people went. It was Disneyland without the city right outside the walls.

I understand that Walt's EPCOT was part of the reason for buying the land, but that idea died with him. Giving Epcot (the park) the status of heart and soul of the property from anything but a geographic perspective strikes me as a little silly, I guess.

Of course that's why people went for the first decade or so, but the driving force and philosophy behind the development of Walt Disney World since day one was EPCOT. Magic Kingdom and company were done first merely because that's what they already knew how to do and would attract people down to Florida while they figured out what to do with EPCOT. That was the plan all along, anyways, to build the theme park and resort area and have it there while the city was being built, to act as a weenie to get people interested in the project. If the city had been built, you certainly wouldn't be saying that the Magic Kingdom is the heart and soul of Walt Disney World, would you? EPCOT also physically manifested itself in the intervening years before it opened by way of the EPCOT Building Code, too. The basic idea is that Walt Disney World is there to have an amazing place for people to visit that also contributes something to the rest of world in the form of encouraging ideas and better ways to do things. EPCOT embodies that, the Magic Kingdom is only a participant.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Can't say I agree, but I can say that if you view MK as the "Heart and Soul" of WDW and a larger Disney expereince, perhaps it is EPCOT Center, with the driving force of E.P.C.O.T. City that is the brain and the thought behind it. Compromise

Oh, I'm not sure I'd say MK is the heart and soul in 2010. I was just using that term for the period being discussed in the '70s (primarily because there was nothing else there! :lol I think EC overshadowed MK when it opened, but has probably fallen back into the pack since.

From a marketing standpoint, it's clearly all about the castle these days, but it doesn't have to be that way. In the '70s, I think it did. There was only so much water-skiing you could promote to get people to visit.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Oh, I'm not sure I'd say MK is the heart and soul in 2010. I was just using that term for the period being discussed in the '70s (primarily because there was nothing else there! :lol I think EC overshadowed MK when it opened, but has probably fallen back into the pack since.

From a marketing standpoint, it's clearly all about the castle these days, but it doesn't have to be that way. In the '70s, I think it did. There was only so much water-skiing you could promote to get people to visit.

OK, now we agree. :lol: I think it's the idea of the MK that's the Heart and Soul at this point, and that's the Pirates, Princesses and Pixie Dust. (PPP). At you said, it doesn't have to be. A REAL marketing of the REAL MK would be what's needed. More than the syrupy stuff. (What's on the GATES.:lookaroun:lol

...That brings me to your second point/paragrpah, I think that the PPP idea of MK is what's being marketed. Not the REAL MK. Also...A lot of the PPP part of DHS, too, not the real DHS. The Fantasmic, Toy Story Part, I mean, not the Hollywood and "real" vibe of the place. That's come up in the pack, perhaps, while the REAL EPCOT has fallen behind, seeing there is no PPP for EPCOT. (thankfully)


Maybe, at the heard of it, it's all marketing. It's certainly a big part of the parks.


Hope this made sense...:lol:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

If the city had been built, you certainly wouldn't be saying that the Magic Kingdom is the heart and soul of Walt Disney World, would you?

I wouldn't...but just to make it clear, since this "heart and soul" phrase seems to have stirred people up, I was using it for a very specific frame of time around the opening of the resort.

Wonderful as the ideas behind EPCOT Center were, it didn't exist. I'm happy to call it a muse, a source of inspiration, a motivating factor, whatever you like...but I can't call something that wasn't there the "heart and soul" of the property in the 1970s. I try to be open-minded, but giving heart and soul status to nonexistent things is where I draw the line.

BTW, I enjoyed your summation of what WDW is about. I didn't intend to exclude all the non-theme park virtues of the property (I love walking along the Boardwalk myself!) in my original rant. As with most prolonged internet arguments, I think we probably agree on 97% of the subject. :lol:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I wouldn't...but just to make it clear, since this "heart and soul" phrase seems to have stirred people up, I was using it for a very specific frame of time around the opening of the resort.

Wonderful as the ideas behind EPCOT Center were, it didn't exist. I'm happy to call it a muse, a source of inspiration, a motivating factor, whatever you like...but I can't call something that wasn't there the "heart and soul" of the property in the 1970s. I try to be open-minded, but giving heart and soul status to nonexistent things is where I draw the line.

BTW, I enjoyed your summation of what WDW is about. I didn't intend to exclude all the non-theme park virtues of the property (I love walking along the Boardwalk myself!) in my original rant. As with most prolonged internet arguments, I think we probably agree on 97% of the subject. :lol:

As do I. Besides, it's more of a guiding and dynamic thought, or the brain for WDW. :lol:


If you really want a "Heart and Soul" to inspire MK and WDW, look west, to Disneyland.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

If you really want a "Heart and Soul" to inspire MK and WDW, look west, to Disneyland.

I feel like that's all I ever talk about on here anymore. It was nice to discuss WDW on a WDW board for a change. :lookaroun :lol:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I feel like that's all I ever talk about on here anymore. It was nice to discuss WDW on a WDW board for a change. :lookaroun :lol:

It's only going to get worse when I go.:shrug::lookaroun

 

[Disneygal24]

I like the arches, it's big, it's bold, it's fun. The plain brown sign - thankfully I never got to see it. Reminds me very much of the sign welcoming you to Branson, or Gatlinburg. Both nice places to visit but neither as magical or grand as Disney.

 

[WDW Vacationer]

[/B]
That would be classier, I agree.


Honestly...I like Disneyland's. It's modern, but I like the fireworks/pixie dust.



*waits for it* :goodnevil:ROFLOL:

Have you seen the ones they have now? Not as good as the pic you posted.

I have no problem with the entrance arches or rpad signs. Any improvement is welcome,but they aren't bad.:shrug:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Have you seen the ones they have now? Not as good as the pic you posted.

I have no problem with the entrance arches or rpad signs. Any improvement is welcome,but they aren't bad.:shrug:

Same structure, but with balloons for WWYC?, right?

I like it.

 

[WDW Vacationer]

Same structure, but with balloons for WWYC?, right?

I like it.

There it is. The smaller walkway ones are the same. Not as nice as the WDW ones,IMO.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

There it is. The smaller walkway ones are the same. Not as nice as the WDW ones,IMO.

Don't like the huge "Celebrate" banners...but you have to remember, DL is on a street. :lol: WDW is out in the wilderness.


And for the record, I prefer the smaller "walkway" ones.

 

[_Scar]

Ewww!

Can we end this celebrate campaign already!? I have a feeling if we do end up getting that sign then it will last for another 5 years.

 

[WDW1974]

It's just hard for me to take this as a serious criticism when you're going to a place where a giant honkin' fake castle sits at the end of a street where guys sell balloons shaped like Mickey Mouse's head.

I would think if you want elegant and sophisticated, you'd go to Paris.

I do. Regularly. And not just for the Disney theme parks!

But I think you still are kinda missing the point ... although what you say right here is closer to 'getting it':

And yes, I get that there are gradations and levels of tawdriness and ostentatiousness, and that it's all relative and what have you...but the bottom line is that no matter how refined they make the entrance signs, Disney World is always going to be (and I would wager has always been) a place that leans heavily toward the garish and vulgar.

Well, you had it until garish and vulgar. WDW wasn't considered that except for a few intellectual elites for its first two decades. Far more intellectual elites praised Disney for what it built using new technologies and how it took the enviormnent and the comfort/entertainment of its guests into consideration.

Look at it this way ... many WDW fans turn down their noses at say UNI ... and certainly Six Flags. They do so because of degrees of tackiness.

SSE could be described as many things, but tacky would not be one ... yet when they stuck a giant cartoon hand over it, things changed.

That's largely the difference between WDW entryways now and those in the 70s and 80s.

If you want to argue how far in that direction it's appropriate to go, fair enough, but you make it sound like the place used to be the Sistine Chapel and then one day (sometime after 1974, I suppose :lookaroun), they decided to let Mickey Mouse start walking around and there went the neighborhood.

I dunno, maybe I just don't get Disney World. Bright primary (and secondary in purple's case) colors and cartoon characters seem pretty damn congruous with the experience that awaits in the parks to me...and all of that loopiness can't have arisen post-Watergate.

No. My point was simply that WDW of the 70s and 80s was a more adult, more diverse, and MORE SOPHISTICATED place.

It wasn't all about toons, character meals, and DISNEY MAGIC!

And yes, that's the WDW I grew up with and grew to love. So, I'm often at odds with the Walmarted version pimped to the masses by one of the world's top marketing machines.