Epcot Center update

[Cmdr_Crimson]

World celebration lights seem to be (mostly) working tonight

 

[Chef Mickey]

Avatar. Land is great, NRJ is one of the best rides they've built this century relative to ticket status, and Flight of Passage is excellent too (although it is far less impressive on repeat rides since you're just watching a movie).

Galaxy's Edge is decent, but certainly not as good as it should have been. Smuggler's Run in particular is just not good.

That's basically it for me since I don't think Cosmic Rewind is anything great. Toy Story Land is awful; TRON is mediocre and poorly placed. Ratatouille is at least an addition but it's a mediocre ride and they dropped the ball on the area/restaurant. MMRR is solid but it's nowhere near as good as Great Movie Ride.

Avatar has one good ride. NR was a disappointment for me. It's OK, but should have been the third ride. The theming of the land itself is great, so I'll give a B- overall. As you said FOP lacks re-rideability making it another slight disappointment.

GE was almost a flop for me. Smugglers Run is a D- at best and RotR is probably a B- because nothing ever works. Overall, it's a C- at best. That means they screwed it up. Should have been a A+.

Agree on Tron and TS. Toy Story Land is probably the worst land they've ever done, maybe next to Toon Town.

 

[UNCgolf]

Avatar has one good ride. NR was a disappointment for me. It's OK, but should have been the third ride. The theming of the land itself is great, so I'll give a B- overall. As you said FOP lacks re-rideability making it another slight disappointment.

GE was almost a flop for me. Smugglers Run is a D- at best and RotR is probably a B- because nothing ever works. Overall, it's a C- at best. That means they screwed it up. Should have been a A+.

Agree on Tron and TS. Toy Story Land is probably the worst land they've ever done, maybe next to Toon Town.

I love NRJ, so that's probably the difference for us in Avatar. It's the kind of ride Disney used to build 25+ years ago and almost never do now; it's probably the best C ticket at WDW for me.

I agree it should have been the third attraction, though -- the land needs a D ticket too (or an E if you want to classify FoP as a D, which I probably would).

 

[Chef Mickey]

I love NRJ, so that's probably the difference for us in Avatar. It's the kind of ride Disney used to build 25+ years ago and almost never do now; it's probably the best C ticket at WDW for me.

I agree it should have been the third attraction, though -- the land needs a D ticket too (or an E if you want to classify FoP as a D, which I probably would).

Agree it's a C-Ticket. It's fine. Decent.

I don't like the screens in it and the final scene has frequent issues. Also, the ride vehicles are really small so the line is unnecessarily long. It should be more like Small World.

 

[UNCgolf]

Agree it's a C-Ticket. It's fine. Decent.

I don't like the screens in it and the final scene has frequent issues. Also, the ride vehicles are really small so the line is unnecessarily long. It should be more like Small World.

I'm not a big fan of screens/projections in general, but I think the way they're used on NRJ is basically the best possible way to use them -- as a supplement to physical sets adding some additional movement et cetera. Tiana's use of screens/projections is much, much worse than NRJ's, e.g., at least in my opinion. I wish Disney would use it as a template for the best way to integrate them into an attraction if they're going to use them.

I definitely agree the capacity is too low and so the line is far too long. I think that has an effect on opinions.

It's very immersive/transportive, though. It feels like you're actually on a river at night in an alien jungle, which is all I need from it.

 

[Chef Mickey]

I'm not a big fan of screens/projections in general, but I think the way they're used on NRJ is basically the best possible way to use them -- as a supplement to physical sets adding some additional movement et cetera. Tiana's use of screens/projections is much, much worse than NRJ's, e.g., at least in my opinion. I wish Disney would use it as a template for the best way to integrate them into an attraction if they're going to use them.

I definitely agree the capacity is too low and so the line is far too long. I think that has an effect on opinions.

It's very immersive/transportive, though. It feels like you're actually on a river at night in an alien jungle, which is all I need from it.

It's definitely a "classier" version of screens, still not a huge fan of any screens. Too lazy unless it's some kind of really immersive screen like FOP, but that is the entire ride...which is also bad.

I think if NR were like a 10-20 min almost all the time, it'd get a B+from me. The anticipation of waiting so long ultimately falls to disappointment when you actually ride.

 

[UNCgolf]

It's definitely a "classier" version of screens, still not a huge fan of any screens. Too lazy unless it's some kind of really immersive screen like FOP, but that is the entire ride...which is also bad.

I think if NR were like a 10-20 min almost all the time, it'd get a B+from me. The anticipation of waiting so long ultimately falls to disappointment when you actually ride.

Yeah, if I'd waited an hour or longer to ride for my first experience, I'm sure it would have colored my opinion, if only a little. I always had a FP to ride so I've never actually had to wait.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Agree it's a C-Ticket. It's fine. Decent.

I don't like the screens in it and the final scene has frequent issues. Also, the ride vehicles are really small so the line is unnecessarily long. It should be more like Small World.

I'm not a big fan of screens/projections in general, but I think the way they're used on NRJ is basically the best possible way to use them -- as a supplement to physical sets adding some additional movement et cetera. Tiana's use of screens/projections is much, much worse than NRJ's, e.g., at least in my opinion. I wish Disney would use it as a template for the best way to integrate them into an attraction if they're going to use them.

I definitely agree the capacity is too low and so the line is far too long. I think that has an effect on opinions.

It's very immersive/transportive, though. It feels like you're actually on a river at night in an alien jungle, which is all I need from it.

Perhaps changing the boats like this..

And adding a rotating restaurant on top of that and that other attraction where your Soarin with Banshees....Oh, if only there was a place in this LAND down the road where you can find something exactly like this...Eh, I'm out of ideas..

 

[HauntedPirate]

Idk what purists you’re talking to but the lights are one of like three things that everyone seems to agree was a net gain. I just wish they were used in a little more moderation

Not me. I abhor the stupid things.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Idk what purists you’re talking to but the lights are one of like three things that everyone seems to agree was a net gain. I just wish they were used in a little more moderation

I agree the lighting package was waaaay overdue..If I recall it was supposed to happen just as Siemens was the sponsor...

 

[lordsigma]

I vastly prefer what's there now to what was there before.

*puts up flame shield*

No reason for a flame shield.

It's all about different perspectives, points of view, etc. Someone's opinion of quality can of course be subjective and influenced by one's perspective, when they first started visiting the park, and what they want from the parks. Some people want nostalgia or a trip back to earlier visits to the parks from their youth or earlier years, others want new stuff, some want a combination of both, some people are all about the IP, some people think there's parks where it should be off limits, and obviously what different generations like or dislike can vary greatly. I do think there is certainly a more common perspective around these parts that has a preference towards the parks the way they were originally envisioned when they first opened (especially regarding Epcot,) but obviously a lot of different people visit the Disney parks not just those of us who are nostalgic for the original Epcot (or Disney parks in general.) And of course some of us who don't go anymore because of some of the changes have been replaced by new guests. So I personally wouldn't say that your opinion is illegitimate. Just as an example I have seen some people say that FoP at Avatar is a disappointment and others say it is one of the greatest attractions ever designed at any park. Obviously a pretty stark contrast. At the end of the day Disney probably views the Epcot changes as successful if it's performing better than it was in say 2017.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

No reason for a flame shield.

It's all about different perspectives, points of view, etc. Someone's opinion of quality can of course be subjective and influenced by one's perspective, when they first started visiting the park, and what they want from the parks. Some people want nostalgia or a trip back to earlier visits to the parks from their youth or earlier years, others want new stuff, some want a combination of both, some people are all about the IP, some people think there's parks where it should be off limits, and obviously what different generations like or dislike can vary greatly. I do think there is certainly a more common perspective around these parts that has a preference towards the parks the way they were originally envisioned when they first opened (especially regarding Epcot,) but obviously a lot of different people visit the Disney parks not just those of us who are nostalgic for the original Epcot (or Disney parks in general.) And of course some of us who don't go anymore because of some of the changes have been replaced by new guests. So I personally wouldn't say that your opinion is illegitimate. Just as an example I have seen some people say that FoP at Avatar is a disappointment and others say it is one of the greatest attractions ever designed at any park. Obviously a pretty stark contrast. At the end of the day Disney probably views the Epcot changes as successful if it's performing better than it was in say 2017.

I'd sorta say the opposite though: the idea of Epcot has always been to embrace some change. It is right in the name, Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. No matter how advanced it was when it opened, anything that is supposed to be cutting edge has to change over time.

On the other hand, MK is an ode to Disney's classic characters, and the classic 'pretend' games that children used to play. Tom Sawyer's Island is a game children used to play. So is Peter Pan. They also used to pretend to be astronauts, knights/kings/queens/princesses, adventurers/explorers, or pirates, etc. Those have now changed over time, but I am inclined to think playing games like pretending to be a pirate was popular for a very long time.

As for Flight of Passage, I've always thought it should have multiple versions. That's a big part of the appeal of Guardians, there are different songs, and everyone has a favorite song. It is also a big part of the lasting appeal of Toy Story Mania. I'm not sure what they were thinking when they made M:F. You can't walk up the gangway and the game sucks. Where's the turret?

 

[lordsigma]

I don’t really disagree. I experienced older Epcot in the ‘90s (maybe not the original from the ‘80s but I ride WoM, Horizons, and a couple versions of SE) but saw Illuminations before RoE and saw RoE right around when it debuted. Loved that show - hadn’t seen it for many years and saw it again more than once in 2010s and loved it once again remembering my childhood but also felt it was time for an update at Epcot (started going to Disney as an adult right before the Epcot updates started). So I get it.