Epcot is changing, let's move on

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
This is kind of a part two to a previous thread I wrote which is here

From the time that Epcot opened, it already had detractors. An article published in Orlando magazine (which has back issues at the Orlando Public Library, downtown branch) in 1983 wrote an article that basically compared the park to the Smithsonian, but with Epcot Center, one had to pay to get in. This was probably not the resounding success that WDP (now WDC) was looking for....their new park was basically getting "fair" reviews........not good for something that had a cost of over $1billion (in 1982 figures) for a company that was not performing well financially (and would, within a year, be the target of some greedy Wall Street wizards.

Early Epcot Center though was somewhat successful purely on circumstance. Since 1978, the average length of stay for Orlando visitors has only grown by .95 nights. Where the majority of guests now stay close to four nights in Orlando, in 1982, they were staying close to 3 nights. For a city that in 1982 only had 3 major theme parks) MK, Epcot, SeaWorld), this was ideal. Epcot recieved great attendance at that time simply because of "a lack of anything else to do". (Now I am not saying that this is the ONLY reason people went to Epcot, it is simply 1 reason)

A lot has changed since 1982. 4 major theme parks have opened, along with countless other attractions design to squeeze every last penny from the millions of visitors. Visitation to Orlando is expected to be at an all-time high this year, with close to 50 million tourists driving or flying in.......this is 30 million more than in 1982, yet Epcot's attendance has been declining over the last 10 years. People are coming to Orlando, and they are picking other attractions to visit. People have a choice that they did not have in 1982, and they are NOT choosing Epcot.

WDC has responded to Epcot's dire situation. Epcot now has 2 major festivals each year, both held during the "off-season". The Flower and Garden Festival is nice, and really packs in the crowds, but the Food and Wine Festival has become an institution for many locals, especially those in the food industry. The Christmas Festival (Candlelight Processional and Holidays around the World) also seems to grow each year. I am not sure anyone can think of these changes as bad.

What most fans seem to be dissappointed with is that the "traditional" Epcot attractions are going away, making room for the "cheap thrill". It began with the removal of the World of Motion, and then the replacement of JII and the removal of Horizons. The "edutainment" exhibits in The Living Seas have made room for Nemo and Friends, and soon, an "unEpcot-like" attraction will be Soarin' into the land........

I feel this is the Epcot that we will be seeing in the future (I am ok with it). MS opened, many miss Horizons, but many more don't seem to, because Epcot posted the highest attendance gains of the 4 parks since the attraction has opened, even higher gains that the MK, which added fireworks and a fantastic 3-D movie.

Epcot is changing.....it will be a long process. No park was built in 1 day, and no park can be changed in 1 day. This was not Walt's Epcot, it was an idea that did not have great staying power. The public changed, found better things to do, and the old Epcot was not built in a way that it could change enough to keep their interest.

Epcot is changing because it HAS to.
 

imagineer boy

Well-Known Member
Yes, change is good, but some changes can be horrid. The whole idea of the Land turning into a Travel Agency is the worst change idea ever! It completly takes away from the spirit of the whole pavillion. What does a travel agency have to do with preserving the world and keeping all plants and animals alive? Were the imagineers drunk when they came up with this idea?

Keeping WOL closed without changing or improving it is insulting. If its not popular, IMPROVE IT!!!

And changing an attraction with the level of detail of POTC like JOI, and replacing it with cheaper sets and special effects?!!

Look, I love to see Epcot change, but atleast do a better job with the changes.
 

dxwwf3

Well-Known Member
I agree with you on alot of points speck76. I DO like the 80's Epcot better than what we will have now, but I know that Disney felt like they needed to do something and they are really helping Epcot out. So don't get me wrong, I love the Epcot we have right now and I'm sure it's only going to get better. Now if they will just add some things to World Showcase..........
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
imagineer boy said:
Yes, change is good, but some changes can be horrid. The whole idea of the Land turning into a Travel Agency is the worst change idea ever! It completly takes away from the spirit of the whole pavillion. What does a travel agency have to do with preserving the world and keeping all plants and animals alive? Were the imagineers drunk when they came up with this idea?

You have NO IDEA if the change will be good or not. Unless you have seen all of the plans, you really have NO IDEA what they are doing, except that a "travel agency" vehicle will be used to tie the pavillions attractions together.
 

TTATraveler

Active Member
Everyone is bashing the Travel agency idea, even before the pavillion is closed to transform it into this theme. It may turn out to be very good, so I think we all need to cool down with bashing things before they even are completed. What may sound bad on paper may turn out good in reality.

Epcot seems to be in a transitional period, from the Epcot of the 80s to what it will be in the future. There are things to remind us of the 80s Epcot still around. I always liked Epcot and still do. In fact it is always the first park I visit on vacation.
 

Michael72688

New Member
I have to agree 100%! I can tell you I will want to go to Epcot once Soarin' opens, but not a second before. I've seen it and done it, there is no reason for me to go back. It isn't like all the other Orlando theme parks that have reason for me to visit more often then when the just open a new ride. I bet within the next 10 - 20 years you are going to see a bunch of new "thrill-rides" built at Epcot to boost its numbers in the 18 - 49 demo
 

cherrynegra

Well-Known Member
I think I agree with your sentiments Brad. EPCOT, or in the now universally accepted name, Epcot had it rough from the beginning because it was supposed to showcase the latest and greatest technological discoveries in the sciences. And the problem is the world of science changes so quickly it would be impossible to keep pace. I know this idea has been shared by others and in a much more eloquent manner than I.

That being said, I feel Epcot is in a current state of transition. Perhaps Epcot will no longer be a showcase for the latest technological discoveries but a place to put those discoveries to work. I understand now how Mission Space and even Test Track have a place in Future World. And if the changes in The Land materialize as we have heard, then I think it will be a perfect complement to the aforementioned Mission Space and Test Track. It is my belief, as unfounded as it may be, that Disney is sticking with the original concept of man's technological advances and merely upgrading the attractions to better showcase those advances in a "stimulating" way that will not only entertain, but educate as well.
 

Lynx04

New Member
Speck I 100% agree with you. While Horizons is probably my fav attraction of all time at WDW, I think it is important to give what people want and expect. People really don't go on vacations to learn, while it is always a benefit, that isn't what the GP main goal. Escaping from their everyday life is their first goal.

The attraction that are being placed in EPCOT still have educational value to them, or at the very least, they intrigue the GP minds a bit.

Disney fan are always worried about losing this attraction or that attraction. But you have to ask yourself what is more important. The park as a whole or a single attraction. I think that the integraty of the park is the most important thing to address, if that means replacing a few attractions then so be it. Having said that, the attractions in the park make the integraty of the park. My point is, if you replace an attraction with an attraction that doesnt exceed the attraction before it then you are just bringing down the integraty of the park. I am a bigger fan of the parks, then I am of a particular ride.

Sorry for the spelling I have to re-install my word program.
 

MerHearted

Well-Known Member
I took my first WDW trip in 2001 but didn't visit EPCOT. I really didn't know anything about it. I then spent two years hearing all the hype and love over EPCOT. So when I finally visiting EPCOT for the first time last year, I expected to be really wowed. Instead, I was bored out of my mind. That place is like a museum disguised as a theme park. The only part that wowed me was Illuminations. The only other thing I can say I enjoyed there was Test Track and I'm not even a thrill ride person. I don't wanna go on vacation to be lectured. So anything to add excitement and some fun to Epcot, I'm all for.
 

DarkMeasures

New Member
imagineer boy said:
Yes, change is good, but some changes can be horrid. The whole idea of the Land turning into a Travel Agency is the worst change idea ever! It completly takes away from the spirit of the whole pavillion. What does a travel agency have to do with preserving the world and keeping all plants and animals alive? Were the imagineers drunk when they came up with this idea?

Keeping WOL closed without changing or improving it is insulting. If its not popular, IMPROVE IT!!!

And changing an attraction with the level of detail of POTC like JOI, and replacing it with cheaper sets and special effects?!!

Look, I love to see Epcot change, but atleast do a better job with the changes.

The Land, well at least it is changing. Would you rather have the rehab now or in 10 years? Also, think of that in a buisness sense. The Pavilian would die in the next 10 years if there was no rehab. The Land does have a good meaning and it may be lost but the theming was always extremely poor in carrying out that message.
 

imagineer boy

Well-Known Member
DarkMeasures said:
The Land, well at least it is changing. Would you rather have the rehab now or in 10 years? Also, think of that in a buisness sense. The Pavilian would die in the next 10 years if there was no rehab. The Land does have a good meaning and it may be lost but the theming was always extremely poor in carrying out that message.

You're right, but I think that they could've done much better than a dumb travel agency idea. I would have made Soarin be, "Soar'n over the land" where guest ride in hot air balloons instead of hang gliders, make the whole pavillion have a forrest like setting, ect.
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
MerHearted said:
I took my first WDW trip in 2001 but didn't visit EPCOT. I really didn't know anything about it. I then spent two years hearing all the hype and love over EPCOT. So when I finally visiting EPCOT for the first time last year, I expected to be really wowed. Instead, I was bored out of my mind. That place is like a museum disguised as a theme park. The only part that wowed me was Illuminations. The only other thing I can say I enjoyed there was Test Track and I'm not even a thrill ride person. I don't wanna go on vacation to be lectured. So anything to add excitement and some fun to Epcot, I'm all for.

Perfect example from a perfect little princess

I love the American Adventure. I aprreciate the technology involved in creating the attraction, and the story is magnificent. The problem is, every time I see this attraction, I do so with a group of about 100 people......the theater holds what.....close to 1000 people, yet the show does not "pack them in". I think to myself "why is nobody here, why don't American want to learn about their own history".....then I remember "oh yeah, this is a theme park, people paid $55 to come here, they don't want a history lesson.

As much as I love this attraction, it more belongs in the Smithsonian than it does at WDW.
 

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
hot air balloons? Hang gliders are more thrilling and the entire purpose of building Soarin' was b/c they could use existing technology that people love, and save money. As for the complaint about retheming, I think we should let Disney finish the job before calling it trash. I personally thought having the ISTC a training facility would be kinda lame for Mission: SPACE when they were building it, but the final product ended up working fine. Having a museum be the home to DINOSAUR was also a bit of an odd decision, but it works, too. I don't get the impression that Soarin' is in any way underfunded, so I'm not at all worried. The fact that they are spending a good 3 months on this transformation is encouraging...
 

hayzer11

Energy, you make the world go round!
Very,Very true, but i have to say that not all Epcot Pavillions needed to be torn down (Horizons, could have kept the outter shell, and put M:S in that, and all they have to do to the wonders of life is update Technology, and get a new show)and some tottaly renevated, such as JII, and The Living Sea's ( it needed a new ride, but keep the show/w the hydrolaters, and its good) KEEP REFERENCES TO OLD ATTRACTION"S, I LOVE TO BE REMINDED IN INTRESTING WAYS!!!
 

sgmco

New Member
speck76 said:
I love the American Adventure. I aprreciate the technology involved in creating the attraction, and the story is magnificent. The problem is, every time I see this attraction, I do so with a group of about 100 people......the theater holds what.....close to 1000 people, yet the show does not "pack them in". I think to myself "why is nobody here, why don't American want to learn about their own history".....then I remember "oh yeah, this is a theme park, people paid $55 to come here, they don't want a history lesson.

As much as I love this attraction, it more belongs in the Smithsonian than it does at WDW.

I think the problem with American Adventure and its attendance issues is the fact that other than the film at the end, there has been no update to the attraction since Epcot opened. It seems a shame that we have to gloss over the past 50+ years in a schmatlzy film. Perhaps a re-vamp that loses our two historical narrators for one who represents "The Spirit of America" (similar in approach to "Golden Dreams" at DCA, just not Whoopi Goldberg).
 

Tim G

Well-Known Member
hayzer11 said:
Very,Very true, but i have to say that not all Epcot Pavillions needed to be torn down (Horizons, could have kept the outter shell, and put M:S in that, and all they have to do to the wonders of life is update Technology, and get a new show)and some tottaly renevated, such as JII, and The Living Sea's ( it needed a new ride, but keep the show/w the hydrolaters, and its good) KEEP REFERENCES TO OLD ATTRACTION"S, I LOVE TO BE REMINDED IN INTRESTING WAYS!!!
It had to go, due to sinking frthe and further into the ground, because of Florida's high water table...
 

Dragonrider1227

Well-Known Member
imagineer boy said:
The whole idea of the Land turning into a Travel Agency is the worst change idea ever! It completly takes away from the spirit of the whole pavillion. What does a travel agency have to do with preserving the world and keeping all plants and animals alive? Were the imagineers drunk when they came up with this idea?
I admit, that's a dumb idea but i'll reserve total judgement until I actually see it. Some people said Disneyland was a bad idea first time it was announced, some said Epcot was a dumb idea when it was announced so we should reserve judgement util it's actually done.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom