Epcot and IPs: Good or Bad?

[morningstar]

Believe me, if it had been working it would still be there. Since everyone insists that Disney only does things for the money, it wouldn't be within their character to change it if it were working.

That assumes they know how to keep it working, and people who only care about money, wouldn't.

The original concept was not a cheap one to maintain. It required a return of numbers to justify keeping it the way it was. It required daily changing to keep up with technology, something that was not a problem when it was first built and people with the imagination to continue to either keep up with or be one step ahead. If they did just neglect it like you say, it was because they couldn't figure out what to do with it.

That's right. That it was expensive to maintain doesn't contradict that if it had been maintained, it could have stayed popular.

They are still neglecting it almost as much as they did back then, but, are, at least, thinking about changes that will revitalize Epcot again and make it a must do park once more.

They are revitalizing it in the sense that a city "revitalizes" a run-down neighborhood by bulldozing everything and building something new that has nothing to do with the old. They are treating it as low-value real estate on which to build something related to whatever IP shows the most short-term profitability.

A book is better then the movie because a book allows for more detail, but, that is not comparable to a theme park.

Not at all. A movie has plenty of detail too, just different kinds of details: scenery, facial expressions, music. Often, an original movie is created to take advantage of these details, whereas an adaptation of a book has to tell a story that may be hard to convey through images.

When did anyone think that musicians should write their own songs? Almost all songs have been written and performed by different people.

Plenty of music snobs will only listen to musicians who perform their own material. Sure, almost all songs get played by cover bands, but they hardly have the prestige of the original musicians. Some songs (not almost all) get covered by another famous musician, and if the result is good it can occasionally be regarded as equal to or better than the original.

Sometimes the person that writes music also performs it, then along comes someone that takes it even further then the original author did. Disney can be looked at like that. Yes, they can and should create some of it's own stuff and when they do, they can do it well. However, they can and do take the idea of others and create great stuff with it.

I don't think derivative works are bad. I don't think books shouldn't be adapted into movies. Disney is very good at theme parks, and their adaptations of IPs will be very good. I just think original is better, all things being equal. If you start with a really great IP, like Star Wars or Harry Potter, then it's worth making an attraction based on these rather than an original concept.

I believe some of Walt's greatest successes were from the ideas (IP's) of others and expressed in a way that the original creator could not. It is the very history of Disney.

I'm guessing you're referring to the fairy tale cartoons like Cinderella and Snow White. Technically these are not IPs, because they are folk tales owned by everybody. But it's more than a technical issue. These are practically myths. They're stories so fundamental that even if you came up with an original story, you'd often find parallels with one of them. And unlike IPs, there's no obligation to respect "canon". Disney took creative license and made changes to the story for The Little Mermaid and in adapting The Snow Queen into Frozen.

 

[KaliSplash]

What is an IP?

I'm glad you asked that. I was wading through the threat wondering what it was that everyone was so upset about.
(still not quite sure why it's so upsetting, but at least I know what it is now.!

 

[Goofyernmost]

That assumes they know how to keep it working, and people who only care about money, wouldn't.

That's right. That it was expensive to maintain doesn't contradict that if it had been maintained, it could have stayed popular.

That would lend itself to the question... which came first, the chicken or the egg. According to what you are saying they would have changed it all before it became less prominent and that they hadn't done any research to find out what guests were looking for.

They are revitalizing it in the sense that a city "revitalizes" a run-down neighborhood by bulldozing everything and building something new that has nothing to do with the old. They are treating it as low-value real estate on which to build something related to whatever IP shows the most short-term profitability.

If you want change to be useful putting back the same thing that was there is doing the same thing over and expecting different results.

Not at all. A movie has plenty of detail too, just different kinds of details: scenery, facial expressions, music. Often, an original movie is created to take advantage of these details, whereas an adaptation of a book has to tell a story that may be hard to convey through images.

OK, I can't even think of a way to say how much of a stretch that is. You know that's not how it works, I'm sure!

Plenty of music snobs will only listen to musicians who perform their own material. Sure, almost all songs get played by cover bands, but they hardly have the prestige of the original musicians. Some songs (not almost all) get covered by another famous musician, and if the result is good it can occasionally be regarded as equal to or better than the original.

Until the Beatles came along, it was almost unheard of that performers wrote their own song. I guess that would mean that people like Barbara Streisand, Bing Crosby and a huge group of people that got famous singing songs written by others were just a fluke. Even with the greatest band ever formed, again the Beatles, so many times the "cover" was better then the original. Sometimes all it takes is putting the emphasis on a different area. It wasn't the way that John and Paul wrote it but it was just as powerful.

I don't think derivative works are bad. I don't think books shouldn't be adapted into movies. Disney is very good at theme parks, and their adaptations of IPs will be very good. I just think original is better, all things being equal. If you start with a really great IP, like Star Wars or Harry Potter, then it's worth making an attraction based on these rather than an original concept.

I'm guessing you're referring to the fairy tale cartoons like Cinderella and Snow White. Technically these are not IPs, because they are folk tales owned by everybody. But it's more than a technical issue. These are practically myths. They're stories so fundamental that even if you came up with an original story, you'd often find parallels with one of them. And unlike IPs, there's no obligation to respect "canon". Disney took creative license and made changes to the story for The Little Mermaid and in adapting The Snow Queen into Frozen.

Call them what you might, but the story wasn't original even if by then it was public property. It was a previous thought, of someone else that Disney put their own spin on. And most times did it better then the original story. They have been doing that for 70 years. There is no reason to not welcome other ideas into the fold. They don't seem to be coming up with many on their own these days. If we wait for them to have an idea, there will be a lot of closed attractions for a very long time.

 

[morningstar]

Until the Beatles came along, it was almost unheard of that performers wrote their own song. I guess that would mean that people like Barbara Streisand, Bing Crosby and a huge group of people that got famous singing songs written by others were just a fluke.

Well until Walt came along, amusement park rides were operated by tattooed ex-convicts. Doesn't mean it was the best way to do it.

They don't seem to be coming up with many on their own these days. If we wait for them to have an idea, there will be a lot of closed attractions for a very long time.

If that's the case, they should get new Imagineers. They used to come up with plenty of original ideas. But how do you know they don't have original ideas? Maybe management just won't let them do them, because they can't show a chart that proves guaranteed profitability based on popularity of the IP and similarity to existing attractions.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Well until Walt came along, amusement park rides were operated by tattooed ex-convicts. Doesn't mean it was the best way to do it.



If that's the case, they should get new Imagineers. They used to come up with plenty of original ideas. But how do you know they don't have original ideas? Maybe management just won't let them do them, because they can't show a chart that proves guaranteed profitability based on popularity of the IP and similarity to existing attractions.

Doesn't matter, the end results are the same and we cannot change that unless we speak with our wallets and stop going there. Unfortunately, you will never get a majority to agree to do the same thing, at least not in my lifetime, so I plan on enjoying what there is and not continuously mourn over what isn't.

 

[orlando678-]

Believe me, if it had been working it would still be there. Since everyone insists that Disney only does things for the money, it wouldn't be within their character to change it if it were working. The original concept was not a cheap one to maintain. It required a return of numbers to justify keeping it the way it was. It required daily changing to keep up with technology, something that was not a problem when it was first built and people with the imagination to continue to either keep up with or be one step ahead. If they did just neglect it like you say, it was because they couldn't figure out what to do with it. They are still neglecting it almost as much as they did back then, but, are, at least, thinking about changes that will revitalize Epcot again and make it a must do park once more.

A book is better then the movie because a book allows for more detail, but, that is not comparable to a theme park. When did anyone think that musicians should write their own songs? Almost all songs have been written and performed by different people. The musician then interprets the creation of others. Sometimes the person that writes music also performs it, then along comes someone that takes it even further then the original author did. Disney can be looked at like that. Yes, they can and should create some of it's own stuff and when they do, they can do it well. However, they can and do take the idea of others and create great stuff with it. I believe some of Walt's greatest successes were from the ideas (IP's) of others and expressed in a way that the original creator could not. It is the very history of Disney. IP's are not a new idea that someone on this board just came up with. IP's have been used by storytellers since storytellers have existed.

Its not like the theme has not been used before. In France for example, there is a very successful theme park called Futuroscope, which basically has the same aim as Epcot Center. Yes it has used one IP, the Rabbids and thats it. The theme park receives a lot of attention, but thats basically what Epcot needs too, not random attractions that just attract guests instead of ruining the theme, which is still relevant. Btw, im not asking for the original Epcot to return, but Im asking for a modern version of the ideas they had in the 80s, 90s, maybe even using the Project Gemini ideas.

 

[216bruce]

It would be soooo easy and even 'not horrible' (damning with faint praise), to retheme "Mission: Space" with GOTG. Some new props, graphics and pix in the waiting area, an obviously new movie and 'mission', but the mechanicals and existing theme dovetail nicely. I actually wouldn't hate this. (more damning with faint praise).

 

[SteamboatJoe]

Warning, the following is a stream of thought post as I have very mixed feelings on the topic and I have yet to be able to really organize them into a truly coherent position.

On one hand, I remembering visiting Epcot when it was at the pinnacle of its existence and it was amazing even though it clearly lacked to the Disney character presence of MK or MGM. Even then, as a kid, I knew it was more of an "adult" park but I always felt like there as a great balance between education and entertainment. It was truly unique in that aspect. I do think the park has strayed from its original vision or at least is not striking the same tones as strongly as it used to. It no longer is on the cutting edge of technology and it just doesn't inspire the way it used to.

However, I think it would be unfair to analyze Epcot without giving serious consideration to how the times of change since its inception and zenith. Widespread cable and the internet were both game changers. Facts, videos, and pictures of far off places were no longer confined to dusty old Encyclopedia Britannicas and fading projector slide shows. With a click of a button on a remote to one of numerous learning-oriented channels or the click of mouse (or smart phone) and a Google search, one can see and hear the world from the comfort of their own home. Figuring out how to capture and hold the attention of people living in a world of Snap Chat, 140 character Tweets, and 6 second Vine video clips is a big challenge.

We have also become more and more cognizant of some of the not so great repercussions (economic and environmental) of the technological advancements long heralded and celebrated in the different pavilions. For example, the invention of the automobile, while significant and impressive, has also lead to auto-oriented development, traffic congestion, big infrastructure maintenance bills, and a significant decline in air quality in some places. Higher education levels, greater awareness about these issues, and knowing how to balance optimism with realism are a big challenge.

Recent world events over the past 15 years have also made the population much more cynical. The 80's and 90's were, overall, very optimistic times in America. The Cold War was won, jobs were plentiful, oil was cheap, climate change was still a fringe concept of little concern for most, and other countries held America in pretty high esteem. Major terrorist attacks, massive economic disruptions, prolonged wars, and political/cultural battles at home have people feeling a lot less confident and scared about the future. Certainly a place like Epcot could help to fight such negativity but for many to have a positive outlook of the future takes a bigger leap of faith than it used to. Making people and potential corporate sponsors believe in the future again using the old methods is a big challenge.

I also find myself thinking about Walt in all of this. I am no expert on the man but I have read a little bit here and there about him and the history of the company. Walt did not believe the parks should be static. He was always making changes and improving things when he thought they didn't work or weren't as good as they could be. The original Disneyland Tomorrowland didn't last 15 years. Numerous rides and attractions left as fast as they came in those early years. Walt was a nostalgic person but he was also a futurist. He certainly would've supported innovation and probably would've understood that sometimes you have to let go of the past to truly move forward. Finally, Walt pretty much invented the idea of using IP's in a theme park. He also had no qualms about using his characters to educate people and make learning fun. Given those facts, I can't completely get behind the anti-IP platform.

To summize my ramble, I am OK with IPs in Epcot as long as they are done strategically, creatively, tastefully, and in accordance with the spirit and intent of Epcot. While I don't believe a particularly great job has been done of using them up to this point, their presence is certainly not going to keep me from visiting Epcot ever again.

*Edits 'cause I grammar good.

 

[Tay]

Guardian of the Galaxy and even Frozen like IPs (Aladdin) shouldn't be in Epcot. Now a dark ride with Mulan and Mushu navigating us through the history of China or Chinese culture in the Chinese Pavilion or a ride with all France characters navigating us through France. Those movies at least represented their countries somewhat properly. Plus they could split the cost with HKDL and DLP.

 

[SteamboatStitch]

In short I feel that IPs can have their place, but don't destroy the original message/idea behind the park. If it gets crowded with IP rides that do nothing but promote their own franchise, then what separates it from the other parks? What separates it from the competition in Universal? Frozstrom does not really promote what EPCOT is about. I don't have the confidence that a GotG ride in Future World will either.

 

[216bruce]

Warning, the following is a stream of thought post as I have very mixed feelings on the topic and I have yet to be able to really organize them into a truly coherent position.

On one hand, I remembering visiting Epcot when it was at the pinnacle of its existence and it was amazing even though it clearly lacked to the Disney character presence of MK or MGM. Even then, as a kid, I knew it was more of an "adult" park but I always felt like there as a great balance between education and entertainment. It was truly unique in that aspect. I do think the park has strayed from its original vision or at least is not striking the same tones as strongly as it used to. It no longer is on the cutting edge of technology and it just doesn't inspire the way it used to.

However, I think it would be unfair to analyze Epcot without giving serious consideration to how the times of change since its inception and zenith. Widespread cable and the internet were both game changers. Facts, videos, and pictures of far off places were no longer confined to dusty old Encyclopedia Britannicas and fading projector slide shows. With a click of a button on a remote to one of numerous learning-oriented channels or the click of mouse (or smart phone) and a Google search, one can see and hear the world from the comfort of their own home. Figuring out how to capture and hold the attention of people living in a world of Snap Chat, 140 character Tweets, and 6 second Vine video clips is a big challenge.

We have also become more and more cognizant of some of the not so great repercussions (economic and environmental) of the technological advancements long heralded and celebrated in the different pavilions. For example, the invention of the automobile, while significant and impressive, has also lead to auto-oriented development, traffic congestion, big infrastructure maintenance bills, and a significant decline in air quality in some places. Higher education levels and greater awareness about these issues and knowing how balance optimism with realism are a big challenge.

Recent world events over the past 15 years have also made the population much more cynical. The 80's and 90's were, overall, very optimistic times in America. The Cold War was won, jobs were plentiful, oil was cheap, climate change was still a fringe concept of little concern for most, and other countries held America in pretty high esteem. Major terrorist attacks, massive economic disruptions, prolonged wars, and political/cultural battles at home have people feeling a lot less confident and scared about the future. Certainly a place like Epcot could help to fight such negativity but for many to have a positive outlook of the future takes a bigger leap of faith than it used to. Making people and potential corporate sponsors believe in the future again using the old methods is a big challenge.

I also find myself thinking about Walt in all of this. I am no expert on the man but I have read a little bit here or them about him the history of the company. Walt did not believe the parks should be static. He was always making changes and improving things when he thought they didn't work or weren't as good as they could be. The original Disneyland Tomorrowland didn't last 15 years. Numerous rides and attractions left as fast as they came in those early years. Walt was a nostalgic person but he was also a futurists. He certainly would've supported innovation and probably would've understood that sometimes you have to let go of the past to truly move forward. Finally, Walt pretty much invented the idea of using IP's in a theme park. He also had no qualms about using his characters to educate people and make learning fun. Given those facts, I can't completely get behind the anti-IP platform.

To summize my ramble, I am OK with IPs in Epcot as long as they are done strategically, creatively, tastefully, and in accordance with the spirit and intent of Epcot. While I don't believe a particularly great job has been done of using them up to this point, their presence is certainly not going to keep me from visiting Epcot ever again.

I think you hinted at something here that is sort of a 500 lb. gorilla in the room. Epcot may have been a product of it's time, hasn't aged well, can't age well (sort of like Tomorrowland) and will always be a bit of a problem child going forward. I think WS is immune to a large degree, but Future World...well, the name alone says it. By the time you design and implement 'the future' it's the past. Also, styles of learning, public mood, vacation priorities and tastes all change over time and the period when Epcot (both Walt's and the 'built' one) was planned and designed- the late 60's and early 70's, was world's apart from today- especially in 'mood'. So, in essence, making Future World more timeless and in tune with today using IP's (acquired or not) makes some sense.
Finally, pretty much everything Disney has ever made apart from it's fab Five was acquired IP of one type or another- animated Features, golden era live-action...Walt bought a lot of 'rights' to stuff. Now the company is big enough they just buy the companies outright.