Distinction between "theme park enthusiast" and "Disney Adult"

[Poseidon Quest]

I agree with your assessment. I have always been a big proponent of finishing off Epcot as originally planned with each country having an attraction that wasn't IP based. I understand IP is a big of part of the Disney parks but I don't think every attraction needs to be IP based.

I love ideas like the Germany Rhine River Cruise or a Swiss pavilion with a version of the Matterhorn. I disagree with a lot of the creative ideas in project Gemini, but I think they did rightly diagnose that Epcot needed thrill rides. A Matterhorn or a Canadian log flume would have been perfect, thematically interesting solutions.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I don't think that's a fair assessment though. High crowds in a park like Epcot in the 80s (perhaps around 20,000 people) would be considered light crowds today. It's been a while since I've done the math, but that original park was an absolute capacity monster. If I recall correctly, I believe at any given hour, the rides were capable of handling around 18,000 people. Not including the large open pathways, numerous high capacity shows and a ton of interactive exhibits, of course the park would feel empty. It's not a testament to its lack of popularity, so much as it is to the foresight of management to want to provide an experience that handles crowds exceptionally well.

Don't bother. If that poster didn't see something with his own eyes, it didn't happen. Just ignore the videos out there that showed lines for things like Imagination and UoE out the doors of the pavilions in the late 80's - EPCOT Center never drew people after 1983, in his mind.

Your numbers are pretty close, IIRC. EPCOT Center could eat people like no Disney park before or since. It was and always will be a master class in theme park and also attraction design. Too bad Eisner let it rot so he could "beat" Universal in Orlando (and honestly, leading up to and after the 94 SSE update, they had no idea what to do with the park). Then both Bob's took a on the rest of it.

To the original topic of this thread - Disney hates park goers with standards, particularly those with first-hand knowledge of how things used to be done and what WDI was capable of. The more they can get rid of those annoying people, the easier it will be to entertain the masses with dumbed-down rides, shoehorned IP, and reduced experiences. MK 1, MK 2, MK 3, and MK 4. That's Disney, now more than ever.

In that vein, I'm off to mourn the loss of yet another masterpiece and watch Martin's tribute to Splash Mountain.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I love ideas like the Germany Rhine River Cruise or a Swiss pavilion with a version of the Matterhorn. I disagree with a lot of the creative ideas in project Gemini, but I think they did rightly diagnose that Epcot needed thrill rides. A Matterhorn or a Canadian log flume would have been perfect, thematically interesting solutions.

What do those things have to do with alcohol sales at Epcot?

Don't forget Japan. Oh, to think what could have been...

 

[Goofyernmost]

I don't think that's a fair assessment though. High crowds in a park like Epcot in the 80s (perhaps around 20,000 people) would be considered light crowds today. It's been a while since I've done the math, but that original park was an absolute capacity monster. If I recall correctly, I believe at any given hour, the rides were capable of handling around 18,000 people. Not including the large open pathways, numerous high capacity shows and a ton of interactive exhibits, of course the park would feel empty. It's not a testament to its lack of popularity, so much as it is to the foresight of management to want to provide an experience that handles crowds exceptionally well.

The first few years of Epcot's existence there were crowded lines and each attraction had massive switchback facilities that were always full. Imagination, World of Motion, Horizons and Spaceship Earth all had full queue lines no matter what time of day you went there. Even Universe of energy had a packed waiting area and all the ride vehicles were full or close to it. I noticed the last time I was there that SSE had both sides of the queue being used but only for a short time during the early morning. It all gradually let up. Before long all were a walk on and they were not filling all the cars, not even close. Demand absolutely declined and the way to know that is that if they hadn't been running at about 20% capacity they would all still be there. Disney never gives up a cash cow. Now they are grabbing at straws trying to find the right combination of things to bring that census back up.

I agree with your assessment. I have always been a big proponent of finishing off Epcot as originally planned with each country having an attraction that wasn't IP based. I understand IP is a big of part of the Disney parks but I don't think every attraction needs to be IP based.

The biggest problem they had with completing World Showcase was, if you can believe it, was the internet. Back when Worlds Fairs were king, countries spent a lot of money to get the message across that their country was worth visiting or they were just trying to generally promote their nation. It was the one way to get thousands of eyes on them and shine on the world scene. Than along came the internet and those same places could promote their countries for pennies compared to what Disney was charging for the space. They had to pay to build their pavilion, stock it, staff it and pay Disney a hefty sum just to place the thing on that land. Any extra thing in there that weren't there when they first opened were planned to possibly be added later, again at the expense of those nations.

Frankly we are lucky they are still there, since there's no real reason for it to stay at that time. Disney was trying to add things to the places to make them a draw for guests. Frozen for example brought life back to the Norway pavilion. Norway had completely backed out of the process when their contract ended. To their credit, Disney expanded the area and added that dreaded IP to it to save the rest of the pavilion for us to visit. Without that IP I really believe that spot would currently be either an empty lot or a boarded up building. Like I've said countless time, I have basically been down on a lot of the directly connected changes Disney has made to the guests, but as the world/country has changed many thing changed about the way that Disney created attractions as well. If they could get other countries to come in and spend millions for new pavilions or some that still remain could justify spending the money to add to their location they would have done it. So, in the case of using IP's in Epcot, if the world were the same now as it was 40 years ago, I might be yelling along with the rest of you, but right now I see it as using those to draw people in or lose the entire park.

 

[LeighM]

This reminds me of another family I knew that took their kids to WDW a few years ago. They all hated Epcot and didn't even stay half the day. The father said it was too educational for them and when they went on vacation they wanted to have fun and not to learn things. One of the parents was a school teacher LOL. My husband and I didn't think there were many educational things left in Epcot but then again we're the type that's curious about everything and want to learn as much as we can.

 

[Magicart87]

"Disney adults" bid on jars of Splash Mountain water.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

The first few years of Epcot's existence there were crowded lines and each attraction had massive switchback facilities that were always full. Imagination, World of Motion, Horizons and Spaceship Earth all had full queue lines no matter what time of day you went there. Even Universe of energy had a packed waiting area and all the ride vehicles were full or close to it. I noticed the last time I was there that SSE had both sides of the queue being used but only for a short time during the early morning.

Yeah, but isn't that to be expected with a new park, especially one that opened Horizons a year later and an entire pavilion with The Living Seas only 4 years after? I have to imagine that when Epic Universe opens, we're not going to see any lightly crowded days unless a hurricane comes through. Still, if crowds lowered at the end of the decade, wouldn't that make sense? Disney MGM Studios would have spread the crowds out a bit more, in addition to more E-tickets being added to the Magic Kingdom. A day where Epcot saw great attendance could have still have seemed light on crowds.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Yeah, but isn't that to be expected with a new park, especially one that opened Horizons a year later and an entire pavilion with The Living Seas only 4 years after? I have to imagine that when Epic Universe opens, we're not going to see any lightly crowded days unless a hurricane comes through. Still, if crowds lowered at the end of the decade, wouldn't that make sense? Disney MGM Studios would have spread the crowds out a bit more, in addition to more E-tickets being added to the Magic Kingdom. A day where Epcot saw great attendance could have still have seemed light on crowds.

It makes sense but they built the place expecting a lot of people and, naturally got them for a while after opening, but it was supposed to remain popular enough to need that massive ability to take care of the crowd. The crowd that started to slow about 5 years in and slowly cut down to what was basically a trickle. To the general public, Epcot did not hold their interests like it did for others. The problem was there weren't enough others. There was little for a young child (3 to 9) to do that was interesting to them so they all gravitated to MK if they had young families. Recent world events should be making it clear the there is a large portion of the population the has no interest in learning anything and it bored them. Right or wrong that is how it worked out. Anyone of the popular attractions at opening, with the exception of World of Motion had become a mile of switchbacks with walk on attendance. It was dying. The addition of the IP kept Norway alive. It was never the most popular kid on the block anyway and with their departure it was destined to fade away completely. So whether or not people think the Frozen shouldn't be in Norway think outside the box as to the purpose of that change. Was it a decision to vary from the original EPCOT theme or was it out of necessity to entertain all ages.

 

[Jrb1979]

It makes sense but they built the place expecting a lot of people and, naturally got them for a while after opening, but it was supposed to remain popular enough to need that massive ability to take care of the crowd. The crowd that started to slow about 5 years in and slowly cut down to what was basically a trickle. To the general public, Epcot did not hold their interests like it did for others. The problem was there weren't enough others. There was little for a young child (3 to 9) to do that was interesting to them so they all gravitated to MK if they had young families. Recent world events should be making it clear the there is a large portion of the population the has no interest in learning anything and it bored them. Right or wrong that is how it worked out. Anyone of the popular attractions at opening, with the exception of World of Motion had become a mile of switchbacks with walk on attendance. It was dying. The addition of the IP kept Norway alive. It was never the most popular kid on the block anyway and with their departure it was destined to fade away completely. So whether or not people think the Frozen shouldn't be in Norway think outside the box as to the purpose of that change. Was it a decision to vary from the original EPCOT theme or was it out of necessity to entertain all ages.

I get what you are saying and agree they needed more to do. IMO IP is the lazy way to do it. It was said earlier what would have been bad about adding attractions to World Showcase that fit the country but wasn't IP based.



This is a good video going over what I am talking about.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I get what you are saying and agree they needed more to do. IMO IP is the lazy way to do it. It was said earlier what would have been bad about adding attractions to World Showcase that fit the country but wasn't IP based.



This is a good video going over what I am talking about.

Which is pretty much the same as I am saying except for one thing. Disney had gotten used to getting these countries to pay for the construction and operation of those pavilions. The problem? By that time things were changing and the demand for such a huge promotional expense was fading fast. The origins also fell around the time that Disney was looking at a financial crisis that left them vulnerable for corporate takeovers from someone that just wanted to develop the established area into things other than a theme park. It came very close to happening.

As far as doing it Norway on the cheap, yes they could have done better, maybe, but they didn't just change the ride, they built the themed area next to it to expand it's demand. Now many don't like to suspend disbelief enough to accept Frozen as a good replacement for Maelstrom it became a point of contention between the Disney Adults and the Theme Park Enthusiast who saw it as a way of using an already established show building and enhancing it via an actual Disney creation.

I know that the original concept to World Showcase was different and by the looks of that video stupendous. Life doesn't always go the way we would like and personally I felt that it was probably one of the best fits and transition as I had seen in any parks. If you ever saw the original promotional film of Norway, at the end of the Maelstrom ride, you would know that it would have been difficult to invent something to make the Norway Pavilion a major draw. Fantasy is one thing, but I am at a loss to guess what could have been a different answer to reviving that Pavilion. My fear is that it could have been a hell of a lot cheaper to just close it or burn it down.

I know, I know, I'm allowing Disney to just be less than they once were, but really we don't have control of it and unless people stop going completely they will continue to take the path of least resistance. To quote an old TV program... "You take the good, you take the bad and there you have, the facts of life".

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I remember in the early days reading that Epcot was not as popular, and it had a lot to do with the educational aspect.

I don’t think it’s only about not wanting to learn - I think it’s about not wanting to learn on vacation, and not wanting to invest vacation money to see science fair-type stuff they can do at home.

AK wouldn’t work if it was “a zoo” because people have zoos everywhere. It, too, was less popular in the beginning before they filled it out.

It’s also about expectations. Up to that point, there was only MK. People expected more MK in Epcot.

The first time I went (much later, as an adult) I remember going to Mexico and Norway and then being surprised the rest of the countries didn’t have rides. I had no interest in PBS-style movies I could watch on PBS (and now online.) Why would that be impressive and worth a trip to WDW? Because it’s on a big screen? Yawn. And I’m no slouch. I was a total honor roll nerd. But wait…I could be on Maelstrom right now instead of watching a movie about France?

Epcot is becoming what I thought it would have been back then.

 

[Jrb1979]

I remember in the early days reading that Epcot was not as popular, and it had a lot to do with the educational aspect.

I don’t think it’s only about not wanting to learn - I think it’s about not wanting to learn on vacation, and not wanting to invest vacation money to see science fair-type stuff they can do at home.

AK wouldn’t work if it was “a zoo” because people have zoos everywhere. It, too, was less popular in the beginning before they filled it out.

It’s also about expectations. Up to that point, there was only MK. People expected more MK in Epcot.

The first time I went (much later, as an adult) I remember going to Mexico and Norway and then being surprised the rest of the countries didn’t have rides. I had no interest in PBS-style movies I could watch on PBS (and now online.) Why would that be impressive and worth a trip to WDW? Because it’s on a big screen? Yawn. And I’m no slouch. I was a total honor roll nerd. But wait…I could be on Maelstrom right now instead of watching a movie about France?

Epcot is becoming what I thought it would have been back then.

I absolutely hate it. Mainly cause all the parks are slowly becoming just an extension of MK. I do agree with the movie part but don't think the answer is IP. What is wrong with adding Country themed attractions to each Country. Like a log flume in Canada and the Rhine River cruise in Germany?

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

I absolutely hate it. Mainly cause all the parks are slowly becoming just an extension of MK. I do agree with the movie part but don't think the answer is IP. What is wrong with adding Country themed attractions to each Country. Like a log flume in Canada and the Rhine River cruise in Germany?

There's a bunch of thing's wrong with it. Or maybe its more that there are far more reasons to use IP than not.

First , the ride is going to utilize IP no matter what it is. Unless your building just Generic log flume ride 127, you are going to have a theme, animatronics, screens, something that tells a story. All of that is going to be someone's intellectual property, so why not use your existing IP, as opposed to paying to use someone else's.

Second, you want to be able to cross market your ride with merchandise at the end. Why sell average Canadian moose stuffy number 6, when you can tie the ride into characters that already appeal to your fan base.

Third, when the countries themselves were paying for the Pavilions, to promote their culture/tourism, they had a financial incentive to create area's that were strictly country themed. Why is Disney putting out the money to pay for something that is arguable to promote people to travel and spend money at areas that aren't Disney. You want Disney rides to encourage people to go to Disney, to watch Disney, and to buy Disney.

Which somewhat relates to 4th. There are tons of travel options and theme park alternatives now that didn't exist when the world pavilion was first built. If I want to visit a Canada themed location...I can go to Canada. If I want to cruise on the Rhine....you can go there. If all your looking for is a log flume ride, you can get that at your local/regional amusement park....and for a hell of a lot cheaper than flying to WDW. If you're going to be competitive in a market space with a lot of options, you need to not just offer something "better" than the competition, as better is a subjective and ever moving target as employees and creators are ever increasingly moving from company to company, job to job. You need to offer something unique that the competition CAN'T offer. That's what Disney IP does. You want to meet Anna and Elsa and go to Arendeale? You are going to Disney. You want to be in Star Wars, you are going to Disney.

 

[Tom Morrow]

First , the ride is going to utilize IP no matter what it is. Unless your building just Generic log flume ride 127, you are going to have a theme, animatronics, screens, something that tells a story. All of that is going to be someone's intellectual property, so why not use your existing IP, as opposed to paying to use someone else's.

This clarification is not needed. We all know that, technically, anything Disney creates is "IP". But "IP" is used as shorthand for "attractions based on films or characters owned by Disney".

 

[flynnibus]

I’m not a theme park enthusiast either. I am passionate about one theme park, and that’s it

we call that a 'californian'

 

[ppete1975]

People of all ages have always loved Disney, but in the last decade the trend of the "Disney Adult" has grown tremendously. A "Disney Adult" isn't just an adult that enjoys Disney, but rather an adult that has made Disney, the brand, their entire lifestyle and personality. We see them everywhere now. They go to the parks "Disney-bounding" and gush over every single shoe-horned character insertion. They vlog about it. They become social media "influencers" entirely around it. They largely don't know and don't care about WDW's history and legacy, and applaud at classic, beloved stuff being removed in place of new, lazy IP insertions. They see the new characters on the Epcot parking lot signs and think "wow, so cute!" because thematic integrity doesn't matter to them, and they can't even comprehend why others would be upset about it. To them, Disney Parks = a celebration of Disney IP and nothing more.

The distinction between the Disney Adult and someone who simply loves quality theme parks and themed entertainment has to be made clear. I would wager that most of us on here are the latter. Enjoying Disney media alone does not make one a "Disney Adult", but even if you fully embrace that, you're likely here on WDWMAGIC because you also loved WDW for the unique, one-of-a-kind quality immersive experience it provided.

For most of WDW's existence, it was possible to have a WDW vacation without being constantly bombarded by Disney, the brand. Sure, the characters and IP were always there, but they weren't everywhere. There was always a balance. You could spend a week at WDW and see very little "Disney" stuff if you wanted. You could love WDW for everything it had to offer without being someone who cares about Disney, the brand, and their IP. This is, unfortunately, no longer the case, and the company is rapidly moving further and further away from that version of WDW.

The irony, is that for most of WDW's existence, WDW adult fans often had to justify their enthusiasm because WDW has never been good at marketing itself as a place with something for everyone in its advertising, always instead opting for shots of characters hugging kids and teacups and Dumbo. "Why do you like Disney World so much? Isn't it just for kids?" "Well no, actually, (massive list of awesome all-ages and even some adult-oriented things to do)." At which point that person could, if they cared enough, do some research into all that WDW actually offers and see that you were right.

But today, the opposite is true, WDW IS that version of itself it has always marketed, where you are bombarded with characters and IP at every step. The current version of WDW caters almost exclusively to kids and the Disney Adults who eat the branding up. Those of us who are simply lovers of theme parks and themed entertainment now have to justify that we like it, largely because of how it used to be, and not because of the Disney-brand fest that it now is.

So yeah. A Disney Adult and a fan of WDW/Disney Parks, while not exclusive, are not the same.

The difference in Disney only in areas and not everywhere is more because fans asked for it. When Epcot opened you didnt see anything Disney, even the gift shops were educational things, the epcot logo, and figment a little bit. And people complained and said where are the characters, where is Mickey? So slowly they added that stuff in and people were happier and spent more. I feel the hotels were the same way, "why am I spending XX if there isnt any Disney, where are the characters, where is the merch, we are here so my kids can be surrounded by Disney"
I dont necessarily think this was the Disney Co.s original plan, but demanded by the consumers even as far back as the early 80s.

 

[Jrb1979]

The difference in Disney only in areas and not everywhere is more because fans asked for it. When Epcot opened you didnt see anything Disney, even the gift shops were educational things, the epcot logo, and figment a little bit. And people complained and said where are the characters, where is Mickey? So slowly they added that stuff in and people were happier and spent more. I feel the hotels were the same way, "why am I spending XX if there isnt any Disney, where are the characters, where is the merch, we are here so my kids can be surrounded by Disney"
I dont necessarily think this was the Disney Co.s original plan, but demanded by the consumers even as far back as the early 80s.

IMO it should be a balance otherwise you end up where they are now and every park blends together.

 

[OrlandoRising]

Don't bother. If that poster didn't see something with his own eyes, it didn't happen. Just ignore the videos out there that showed lines for things like Imagination and UoE out the doors of the pavilions in the late 80's - EPCOT Center never drew people after 1983, in his mind.

Your evidence also doesn't prove anything about Epcot's popularity. Yet it's a fact that disappointing Epcot attendance after its first year was a factor in the Saul Steinberg run on the company that contributed to the ouster of Ron Miller and the hiring of Michael Eisner who quickly made moves to bring more Disney characters into Epcot.

We're right back where we usually are on this board: Epcot purity arguments and the myth that the original park was a resounding commercial success.

 

[Californian Elitist]

we call that a 'californian'

Awesome, love it.

 

[LeighM]

I absolutely hate it. Mainly cause all the parks are slowly becoming just an extension of MK. I do agree with the movie part but don't think the answer is IP. What is wrong with adding Country themed attractions to each Country. Like a log flume in Canada and the Rhine River cruise in Germany?

That's what we have in our local amusement parks - Busch Gardens and Kings Dominion. Most people go to Disney theme parks to also experience Disney IP in some fashion especially if they have kids that want to experience Frozen, Moana, and Encanto characters.