Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks

[Mr.EPCOT]

Because they've changed and "added" so much that EPCOT's message is hardly there anymore?

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Because they've changed and "added" so much that EPCOT's message is hardly there anymore?

I think it is.....It's diluted, yes, but if they were to add some more tie-ins to the attractions, and made FW a bit more cohesive EPCOT Center could easily be seen in Epcot.

 

[HMF]

Maybe that's my biggest complaint with MS. You go in, have your thrilling ride (again which would be much more enjoyable if it had random adventures and not the same every time) and that's it. The post show was good for one visit from me. And the shop is tiny and sells crap. MS certainly isn't bad. It's fun for me. But by Disney's internal metrics it isn't what they expected because they never planned to turn two of the 'fuges into glorified simulators. And as much as I enjoy the ride, it is in no way a 'must' when I visit.

The bottom line is Space exhibits in most science Museums are better than the Mission Space postshow but let's be honest here do you really think Disney could have kept Horizons into the 21st Century it was becoming horribly dated.

 

[HMF]

The point is, things change because the audience changes. ?

No' things change because people are conditioned to be dumber than they were in the 80s and 90s.

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

No' things change because people are conditioned to be dumber than they were in the 80s and 90s.

Ah! And there's where the great debate begins: Did EPCOT and Disney fail, or did society as a whole fail?

 

[HMF]

Ah! And there's where the great debate begins: Did EPCOT and Disney fail, or did society as a whole fail?

Well' society helped.:animwink:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Ah! And there's where the great debate begins: Did EPCOT and Disney fail, or did society as a whole fail?

Society didn't hurt what Disney did to EPCOT...Which is what Disney did. They gave up on EPCOT Center and let it fail. I think that if they updates their attractions and exhibits and even LOOK of the park, while still keeping it EPCOT Center, it would have worked.

Epcot 94 was a alternative, and could have been a good one, but they gave up on that too.

They seem to be reevaluating it now...

 

[Horizonsfan]

I know everyone is still bitter about horeizone ten years later. however, I don't understand how adding attractions that WIDEN the park's audience somehow equals CHEAPENING the experience.

For example, and with sponsorships set aside, if few people were riding Horizons, WHY should Disney have kept the attraction? If a thrill ride about space had the potential to bring more people into the park (who will then visit other educational attractions during their day), why should Disney have chose to put that very same money into an update of Horizons, which is really just adding a new mask to the same beast.

A similar thing happened with Spaceship Earth. The touchscreen animation was made to help the attraction appeal to a wider audience, including younger children. The attraction as it was before was not bad, but despite its grandeur and inspiration, it was a lecture. (I almost feel bad for saying this, because I did enjoy SEE before the refurbishment. But it is true nonetheless.) The new version has found a way to help the ride appeal to more people. If the descent had been completely finished on opening, I think fanboy opinion on the attraction would have been more positive. The point is, things change because the audience changes. why si it always bad when Disney chooses to add or change something that might actually help expose more people to Epcot's message?

Before I respond, I realize my username doesn't help to make me sound fair but please understand that I do respect M:S. I find the pavilion's exterior to be gorgeous and the attraction's core idea to have unlimited potential, but there are serious flaws in how it came to be.

As our insiders have said on here multiple times, Horizons could of, and very desperately needed to, receive a refurbishment in the early 90s to update it. Rather than approve the(very $$$) refurbishment, Eisner decided to just for the most part shutter the recently sponsor-less pavilion.

For most of the 90s till its demolition it was very rarely opened. It was opened during UOE's 1996 refurb/catastrophe. I myself rode it in 1998, for the first and unfortunately only time. It would not surprise me that survey results said guest were unimpressed with it in its later years. Tossing aside the strong possibility TDO messed with survey results, it had outdated films, costumes, set, and technology presented all through out. (To a Disney and EC geek like me, it was still one of the most exciting attractions on property, second only to the Haunted Mansion for me)

It was left to sit there disrespected by TDO and the average unaware guest. It had the potential to come back one day, refreshed and re-imagineered. Unfortunately M:S destroyed any hope that Horizons could ever return to the glory it had for quite some time.

No true EC fan is against widening Epcot's appeal or the types of attractions in the park. What disgruntles the fans is the fact that experiences that are beloved, for many different reasons, such as Horizons and WOM are taken out in the process. I can't speak for all but my biggest problem with that recurring action is the fact that there is still room available through out FW that could be used to add attractions such as M:S & TT. If the park had gone that route and for example added a space pavilion in the space between The Land and TLS rather than just replace the Horizons pavilion, I would be shocked if there would of been even a tenth of the disappointment caused by the route actually taken. Of course everything comes down to that little pesky problem of $$$. Disney wants to put forward as little of its own dough as possible in EC, and that is where you get the actions that have occurred.

I keep on hoping, highly unrealistically, that some day a new Horizons attraction will rise again in the spot once reserved for the Space pavilion, between The Land and The Living Seas pavilions. Thus righting the management mistakes of the past

<<steps down off of EC soap box >>


Thank you Mr. Sotto and whylightbulb for your very generous contributions. Your posts really help to give me perspective on how the most magical places are/were made and the multitude of problems that you have to solve.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Before I respond, I realize my username doesn't help to make me sound fair but please understand that I do respect M:S. I find the pavilion's exterior to be gorgeous and the attraction's core idea to have unlimited potential, but there are serious flaws in how it came to be.

As our insiders have said on here multiple times, Horizons could of, and very desperately needed to, receive a refurbishment in the early 90s to update it. Rather than approve the(very $$$) refurbishment, Eisner decided to just for the most part shutter the recently sponsor-less pavilion.

For most of the 90s till its demolition it was very rarely opened. It was opened during UOE's 1996 refurb/catastrophe. I myself rode it in 1998, for the first and unfortunately only time. It would not surprise me that survey results said guest were unimpressed with it in its later years. Tossing aside the strong possibility TDO messed with survey results, it had outdated films, costumes, set, and technology presented all through out. (To a Disney and EC geek like me, it was still one of the most exciting attractions on property, second only to the Haunted Mansion for me)

It was left to sit there disrespected by TDO and the average unaware guest. It had the potential to come back one day, refreshed and re-imagineered. Unfortunately M:S destroyed any hope that Horizons could ever return to the glory it had for quite some time.

No true EC fan is against widening Epcot's appeal or the types of attractions in the park. What disgruntles the fans is the fact that experiences that are beloved, for many different reasons, such as Horizons and WOM are taken out in the process. I can't speak for all but my biggest problem with that recurring action is the fact that there is still room available through out FW that could be used to add attractions such as M:S & TT. If the park had gone that route and for example added a space pavilion in the space between The Land and TLS rather than just replace the Horizons pavilion, I would be shocked if there would of been even a tenth of the disappointment caused by the route actually taken. Of course everything comes down to that little pesky problem of $$$. Disney wants to put forward as little of its own dough as possible in EC, and that is where you get the actions that have occurred.

I keep on hoping, highly unrealistically, that some day a new Horizons attraction will rise again in the spot once reserved for the Space pavilion, between The Land and The Living Seas pavilions. Thus righting the management mistakes of the past

<<steps down off of EC soap box >>


Thank you Mr. Sotto and whylightbulb for your very generous contributions. Your posts really help to give me perspective on how the most magical places are/were made and the multitude of problems that you have to solve.

Fantastically said!:sohappy:

 

[Horizonsfan]

Fantastically said!:sohappy:

Well I'm glad to know at least somebody like what I said.

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

Well I'm glad to know at least somebody like what I said.

I liked it and approve as well! :wave:



I wouldn't hold your breath on Horizons being rebuilt, but I liked your overall message.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

I disagree quite strongly.

He couldn't, nor could ANY Disney CEO, allow DCA to fail. (I'd go so far as to say ANY park, but one across from DL?)

There was just no other option. Now could he have said 'let's spend $500 million instead of $1.9 billion' (which is the real figure if you toss in TSMM and WoC, which were budgeted seperately)... yeah, he could have gone cheap.

But I think by that point he could plainly see that would be throwing more good money after bad. When you look at everything from big things like ToT and Bug's Land to all the entertainment and seasonal crap thrown in to DCA by prior management at TDA, it all added up to a very large sum and had done very little to improve the park's bottom line or rep. ... So he just saw that half-arsed moves that still cost the company made no sense.

Again, just like with Pixar some people want to say Iger was a man of vision. I totally disagree. He was simply a smart man who saw what was right in front of him and acted accordingly.

As an aside, I have actually heard more than once that Jay Rasulo was against Iger's DCA: Extreme Makeover plan, but opted to shut his mouth with a new 'Sheriff' running the show.

I know that is a common perception that a lot of folks toss around as an excuse for the Walmarting of the park.

I know I was there virtually every other month during the 80s (often for days at a time) and my anecdotal experience wasn't that.

I mean I heard people say that they had 'heard' that ... but I never heard one person in the park ever saying that.

So while I don't doubt it may have been an issue to some degree, I think it was very much overblown and used as an excuse to cheapen the product.

Again, it's just my opinion, I think you downplay the significance of a "smart" man acting on "what is right in front of his face". That just is not as simple as you make it sound. While he may or may not be or ever be considered a visionary...any "smart" manager has to by definition have vision.

As far as Epcot is concerned, I can only repeat what my limited experience was, and I heard many kids complaining to their parents either when in Epcot or when there was discussion on going to Epcot. Especially with teens, I repeatedly heard comments of how "boring it is. Then again we can all be accused of hearing what we want to hear and seeing what we want to see, don't we.

 

[Horizonsfan]

I wouldn't hold your breath on Horizons being rebuilt, but I liked your overall message.

I must reiterate that it is a highly unrealistic dream of mine. :animwink:

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

I must reiterate that it is a highly unrealistic dream of mine. :animwink:

*Inserts beginning of Horizons theme here* :lookaroun

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Resistance is Futile!

I try to restrict my views to the thread topic, "my take on the parks", and not so much the people running them. I think everyone has already formed their opinions about these executives so I find that "Resistance is Futile". I'm taking a break.

See you after the 4th! I'm heading to the beach.

 

[Chevross]

Have fun at the beach!

 

[jt04]

I try to restrict my views to the thread topic, "my take on the parks", and not so much the people running them. I think everyone has already formed their opinions about these executives so I find that "Resistance is Futile". I'm taking a break.

See you after the 4th! I'm heading to the beach.

The executive bashing never stops on this forum. It becomes embarassingly (sp?) monotonous but some folks have a lot of anger to vent.

Anyway, I have figured out a storyline for M:S finally and a way to create the pavilion as a journey to Mars. That was the last piece of the puzzle for me. I'll post it when I get time. Have a nice 4th!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Well I'm glad to know at least somebody like what I said.

Me too, thanks for chiming in. Money and scope are usually the issue, not to mention how much the Sponsor must pony up. Marketing is the driver too. If it's new, it can be sold as such and qualify for more investment, but rehabs are harder to sell, especially if it wasn't a smash hit to begin with. We also had to remove operating cost to add some. What that means is you have to trade the labor in Horizons for Space. They don't add more labor cost. Although there may be places to put Space, it needed to replace something to qualify. Now you can see how hard it can be to get an attraction funded and launched.

All of this is a far cry from Walt coming back from Vacation in Switzerland and saying "Boys, what we need is a Matterhorn". And they start sketching. It's a different world of taking many factors into account, pleasing many masters, and fighting to get every dollar where a guest can see it.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Holiday weekend Reading

Here's a fun graphic novel that just came out titled
"What ever happened to the World of Tomorrow?". A kids search for the real city of the future! Great looking book with Progress City, 1939 NYWF, and EPCOT in it too! Have a great weekend!

http://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-World-Tomorrow-Brian/dp/0810996367

 

[Horizonsfan]

Me too, thanks for chiming in. Money and scope are usually the issue, not to mention how much the Sponsor must pony up. Marketing is the driver too. If it's new, it can be sold as such and qualify for more investment, but rehabs are harder to sell, especially if it wasn't a smash hit to begin with. We also had to remove operating cost to add some. What that means is you have to trade the labor in Horizons for Space. They don't add more labor cost. Although there may be places to put Space, it needed to replace something to qualify. Now you can see how hard it can be to get an attraction funded and launched.

All of this is a far cry from Walt coming back from Vacation in Switzerland and saying "Boys, what we need is a Matterhorn". And they start sketching. It's a different world of taking many factors into account, pleasing many masters, and fighting to get every dollar where a guest can see it.

Thats really interesting and little depressing. Thanks for your input.