epcot wand....

[wannab@dis]

Why does EVERYTHING have to be overdone and "magical"?EPCOT was the first non-Magic Kingdom park for a reason!

Yep, and it went downhill quickly. People were not interested in epic length snoozefest dark rides all over the park. Maybe if they had actually put in some unique attractions, they could have kept people's attention. The "boring" aspect of EPCOT Center is a simple fact and the consumers wanted the "Disney Magic" in Disney parks. The park was changed to Epcot, additions and updates were done to bring a mix of attractions and the park started to prosper once again.

Other than the "Epcot centrists" around here, I've personally NEVER met anyone that liked Epcot more than Magic Kingdom in the early years. I heard many say the dining was great, but they were bored with the attractions. Basically, the attractions were same thing over and over and over. Now, I hear people talking about Epcot as a fun park WITH great dining.

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

the public may be enjoying but defeats the entire purpose of the ride. This is where we differ, you folks feel the company can only do well and make money if it appeals to the most general of audiences, wheras we feel the attractions are famous as is, and need only upgrades and new effects like with the haunted mansion to keep people coming. Having a johnny depp show out front? sure, it's equivalent to even the walt disney era of zoro and davy crocket meet n greets, having johnny in the ride, and taking over tom sawyer island at disneyland? that's when we disagree

tailoring an item to its costumers? then we assume that over 90% of the people who go to Disney want to see nothing but disney characters and pixar related experiences, and maybe a quick trip on space mountain, that they would have no interest in anything else except that, or could we assume that they go because they hear people rave about it, then they go, but simply ride rides like sitch's great escape simply because its available to them, doesn't mean they would actually like it, they might like the CoP more, but would never get the chance to ride it because they would have no clue what it was or even could tell if it was open.


How will these brands flag? What kid back then would ever have thought Davy Crokett would be a thing of the past by the late 70s early 80s?

With so many more movies from Disney-Pixar to be released in the years to come, Pirates will easily be replaced by something, they might just leave johnny in the ride and he will appear nearly as equal to any of the other characters in the ride, since I doubt many kids in the next 40 eyars will even know much about him.

Princesses and mickey mouse in general terms will always do well and should, doesn't need to mean they should be oversaturated.

Compeltely agree that star tours and body wars was another repeat thing. But would assume since I liked wonders of life I would be one of those fanboys that would hate your statement about crush and monsters but would find nothing wrong with my statement on body wars and star tours

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

that was my point yankspy that disney actually took these few chances since the 1990s and actually gave people something different that didn't rely on pixar or an animated character and the attractions were still a success:wave:

 

[wannab@dis]

the public may be enjoying but defeats the entire purpose of the ride.

Wow...

Well, I guess the debate is over. You're right, why would a business ever want consumers to like their products?

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

and consumers liked pirates when it opened and they liked pirates in the 80s and 90s, same thing with the haunted mansion, but since we can only go the route disney took a few years ago with refurbing the ride than you assume thats the only way to go in making rides more relevant, keep the characters and movie tie ins coming....yet we just saw with the haunted mansion that was not the case and the ride remains popular as it was in 1971.

 

[krankenstein]

Look at Dinosaur or Kali or Kiliminjaro.

When Dinosaur was still Countdown to Extension it had no character tie-ins. However, Disney made a movie called "Dinosaur" (I believe it was the first CGI movie the company made). Eisner saw an opportunity to promote the movie. Thus, the attraction was renamed Dinosaur and now features ties to that movie.

 

[Legacy]

the public may be enjoying but defeats the entire purpose of the ride. This is where we differ, you folks feel the company can only do well and make money if it appeals to the most general of audiences, wheras we feel the attractions are famous as is, and need only upgrades and new effects like with the haunted mansion to keep people coming. Having a johnny depp show out front? sure, it's equivalent to even the walt disney era of zoro and davy crocket meet n greets, having johnny in the ride, and taking over tom sawyer island at disneyland? that's when we disagree

First off... that post went in so many tangents I'm having a hard time trying to wrap my head around your point; so I'm gonna focus on the first paragraph because it seems to sum up everything else you said.

Read that bolded statement.

Now... why do you think EPCOT Center had such a hard time surviving when it first opened?

If you can't make the connection... Epcot almost bankrupted Disney because it didn't "appeal to the most general of audiences." Our argument isn't based on assumption... this has HAPPENED. Disney started adding characters to Epcot because, without them, the park would have FAILED. Attractions AREN'T enough.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Disney animated characters and pixar is successful and just as part of the brand is their famous rollercoasters, however just because the public likes that, as do I like disney characters and pixar movies, etc it seems Disney is playing it safe these days and not taking more chances. It knows a nemo themed ride or Toy story themed ride will do well because people will like it....for now that is.....I have to wonder how long these rides will last when more movies will replace them as beeing more famous and popular.....like the whole johnny depp craze....some girl now may be a grandma blushing on her boat in 2058 and seeing the old rickity johny depp AA with lazy malfunctioning eye and broken arm, and her grandaughter wonders what the heck was so amazing about the movies in the first place

In my little fanboy world of mysery and magic, I wonder if Disney would ever revitalize old rides like adventure thru inner space, here is a ride that could work in discoveryland, tomorrowland, or even Epcot.

No I don't want old projector screens, or polyester, but taking that story and concept and using new technology, and making that eerie "we are part of an experiment" and making it more than just an omnimover, but a ride where our vehicles shift, spin, and jitter as we go through inner space could make it a cool attraction that the public may like, as it would be a new attraction, but the fanboys would be intriguied too, but there is unfortunately no gaurantee they (the public) will like it, but if you call it buzz's inner space nemofied spectacular, then yes every family and their mom will like it or atleast have more potential in liking it :shrug:

It feels to me that Disney has done pretty much everything they could, their Imagineers made monorials, rollercoasters, omnimovers, AA's, interactive character technology, etc what really is there left to do? Sure someone in Imagineering will always be dreaming, but it seems they don't get the approval to make something different, rather its the pixar brand or disney character brand just repackaged over and over. We can meet Buzz and Woody, fine, we can see them in a parade, fine, now they have their own ride, what more? will they get their own street named after them, a fireworks show, a soap opera? How many times does one need to see Cinderella before they've seen her too many times? A 4 year old won't care, they're disney's best audience, they don't normally question, and just plain don't care, give the girl cinderella and by golly she will see her as many times as possible, give the boy a pirate or indy and he will get it, the same could be said for changing phases such as a new character some day replacing johnny depp and the one after that, but still for the time in which that takes place, how much is too much and when can room be spent on making something that does not rely on pixar or disney animated characters

EXACTLY!

Yep, and it went downhill quickly. People were not interested in epic length snoozefest dark rides all over the park. Maybe if they had actually put in some unique attractions, they could have kept people's attention. The "boring" aspect of EPCOT Center is a simple fact and the consumers wanted the "Disney Magic" in Disney parks. The park was changed to Epcot, additions and updates were done to bring a mix of attractions and the park started to prosper once again.

Other than the "Epcot centrists" around here, I've personally NEVER met anyone that liked Epcot more than Magic Kingdom in the early years. I heard many say the dining was great, but they were bored with the attractions. Basically, the attractions were same thing over and over and over. Now, I hear people talking about Epcot as a fun park WITH great dining.

Remember the little "Character Integration" topic I kept bringing up in the last debate?(Does EPCOT need saving thread)It works PERFECTLY here.

If you need a link tell me,

 

[yankspy]

the public may be enjoying but defeats the entire purpose of the ride. This is where we differ, you folks feel the company can only do well and make money if it appeals to the most general of audiences, wheras we feel the attractions are famous as is, and need only upgrades and new effects like with the haunted mansion to keep people coming. Having a johnny depp show out front? sure, it's equivalent to even the walt disney era of zoro and davy crocket meet n greets, having johnny in the ride, and taking over tom sawyer island at disneyland? that's when we disagree

tailoring an item to its costumers? then we assume that over 90% of the people who go to Disney want to see nothing but disney characters and pixar related experiences, and maybe a quick trip on space mountain, that they would have no interest in anything else except that, or could we assume that they go because they hear people rave about it, then they go, but simply ride rides like sitch's great escape simply because its available to them, doesn't mean they would actually like it, they might like the CoP more, but would never get the chance to ride it because they would have no clue what it was or even could tell if it was open.


How will these brands flag? What kid back then would ever have thought Davy Crokett would be a thing of the past by the late 70s early 80s?

With so many more movies from Disney-Pixar to be released in the years to come, Pirates will easily be replaced by something, they might just leave johnny in the ride and he will appear nearly as equal to any of the other characters in the ride, since I doubt many kids in the next 40 eyars will even know much about him.

Princesses and mickey mouse in general terms will always do well and should, doesn't need to mean they should be oversaturated.

Compeltely agree that star tours and body wars was another repeat thing. But would assume since I liked wonders of life I would be one of those fanboys that would hate your statement about crush and monsters but would find nothing wrong with my statement on body wars and star tours

Did they really change that much on the Pirates? I thought that was an example of how to perfectly balance the old with the new.

As far as the brands flagging. What about Peter Pan. That brand is how old and yet it still packs them in. Buzz and Nemo are the new Snow White and Peter Pan for the next generations. Do I like them as much as the classics, no. I am fully aware though that this has everything to do with nostalgia and the fact that I grew up with these characters. Pixar characters will be special for those who grew up with them as well.

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

There is a difference between a business wanting its consumers to enjoy to like their product and a business along with its artists wanting consumers to not enjoy the ride, but to understand it, like when X Atencio was upset after all the time he spent on Inner Space the amount of kids that would scream and yell and could care less about hearing about their journey into the molecule, or Harriet Burns' laboring work on the model for the CoP only to find it has been scrapped sometime after the world's fair, or Klaude Coates finding ways to muffle the projector noise on if you had wings only to find people didn't care because they laughing and gawking anyway at the traffic cop with the flamingos crossing the street.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

^^^Agreed.

Somehting is needed for BOTH parties.

 

[wannab@dis]

There is a difference between a business wanting its consumers to enjoy to like their product and a business along with its artists wanting consumers to not enjoy the ride, but to understand it, like when X Atencio was upset after all the time he spent on Inner Space the amount of kids that would scream and yell and could care less about hearing about their journey into the molecule, or Harriet Burns' laboring work on the model for the CoP only to find it has been scrapped sometime after the world's fair, or Klaude Coates finding ways to muffle the projector noise on if you had wings only to find people didn't care because they laughing and gawking anyway at the traffic cop with the flamingos crossing the street.

Yep, those consumers and their ignorance. How dare they want to have fun at a theme park vacation destination. :brick:

 

[wannab@dis]

^^^Agreed.

Somehting is needed for BOTH parties.

Why?

You seem to assume that "your party" has enough numbers to make a difference. Sorry, but I think that's just not accurate.

 

[jakeman]

There is a difference between a business wanting its consumers to enjoy to like their product and a business along with its artists wanting consumers to not enjoy the ride, but to understand it, like when X Atencio was upset after all the time he spent on Inner Space the amount of kids that would scream and yell and could care less about hearing about their journey into the molecule, or Harriet Burns' laboring work on the model for the CoP only to find it has been scrapped sometime after the world's fair, or Klaude Coates finding ways to muffle the projector noise on if you had wings only to find people didn't care because they laughing and gawking anyway at the traffic cop with the flamingos crossing the street.

That's the thing. It's not important. It's a theme park. It is there to take your money and provide you with good memories so you will want to come back and give them more money. That's all. Once someone has reconciled to this fact I would venture to guess that all of this other "stuff" that seem momumentially important is seen in a new, less severe, light.

These types of converations is the equivalent of analysing the photography in a motivational poster. Yeah you migh get what the photographer is going for, but you are missing the point of the poster.

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

I'm not criticising you but please show us the evidence with attendance facts that showed EPCOT Center was a failure or it was it the word of mouth by some kids who rather be playing floppy disk games that found EPCOT Center boring.

I have gone through photos and photos from friends and family during EPCOT Center's earliest years (before the very late 1980s) and have found crowds after crowds of people, some photos taking in february (86 I believe), now of course u'd have to trust this observation as many of these photos are from relatives and their friends in Maine who went to disney frequently in the 80s mainly for conventions and such and I do not have these photos at this time to scan and help prove my statement other than me seeing them and talking to them about their expriences with EPCOT Center, and they critized the lack of variety at the park,which I agree with too

Mickey and friends in future world costumes, no problem, characters in world showcase, no problem, adding more trees, benches, and drinking fountains, no problem, new menus and restaurant, no problem, adding more to world showcase that isn't just films and boat rides, no problem, this all helped the park yes, but you really think that is the only way the park can survive, if anything we saw Epcot survive in the late 90s without nemo or gran fiesta, but with a variety of rides and shows and not just 15 minute dark rides

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Why?

You seem to assume that "your party" has enough numbers to make a difference. Sorry, but I think that's just not accurate.

There are more people out there than you realize...Not everybody likes cartoon hats and wands and talking fish.

Read below too,while your at it.

I'm not criticising you but please show us the evidence with attendance facts that showed EPCOT Center was a failure or it was it the word of mouth by some kids who rather be playing floppy disk games that found EPCOT Center boring.

I have gone through photos and photos from friends and family during EPCOT Center's earliest years (before the very late 1980s) and have found crowds after crowds of people, some photos taking in february (86 I believe), now of course u'd have to trust this observation as many of these photos are from relatives and their friends in Maine who went to disney frequently in the 80s mainly for conventions and such and I do not have these photos at this time to scan and help prove my statement other than me seeing them and talking to them about their expriences with EPCOT Center, and they critized the lack of variety at the park,which I agree with too

Mickey and friends in future world costumes, no problem, characters in world showcase, no problem, adding more trees, benches, and drinking fountains, no problem, new menus and restaurant, no problem, adding more to world showcase that isn't just films and boat rides, no problem, this all helped the park yes, but you really think that is the only way the park can survive, if anything we saw Epcot survive in the late 90s without nemo or gran fiesta, but with a variety of rides and shows and not just 15 minute dark rides

:sohappy:

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

jakeman to say its not important, it's just a theme park then defies the whole point of walt disney and imagineering making a theme park in the first place. He could have made it so simple, a mere backlot studio experience near burnank, but he didn't because he knew that merry go rounds and average carinval rides were owned by people at parks who did not care about the their parks importance so long as they could charge money and make a buck.

He risked so much, and pushed his Imagineers, and even them on their own to do something far beyond that just making a buck.

If someone had come to him and said "walt, these folks want pirates of the carribean to be a rollercoaster ride" Now walt could have been stubborn and said "no! it will be a boat ride and the guests go down the waterfalls into the past and see the pirates" so then you have a polarizing thing, the audience will either like or not, and may find more of the same thing they hate i.e. EPCOT Center's future world and will say "this place sucks" and go home, but there will still be busloads of people going there to see it who never saw it yet, so the money would still be flowing.

Or, like EPCOT Explorer said, you could take the time to please both audiences and ensure money from both of them like actually putting something in the SSE descent and having it be up to the guests convenience to enjoy the ride the way they want, then everyones happy.

But since this is the majority of what Disney has been doing (making rides more "relevant" or "popular" buy adding character or movie tie ins or making cjaracter movie franchised based rides, than you assume it must be right because people keep coming to WDW, rather than seeing that people will always be coming to WDW even if it was cinderellas and stitchs galactic jamboree, what I and others have been expressing is not how we want the parks to be for ourselves, but since disney is going on a one track monorail state of mind, CHARACTERS, MOVIE TIE INS, AND PRINCESSES, why can't the company try some more unique approaches which in FACT have proved to be popular like E:E, countdown to extinction/dinosaur, kali, the safari, tower of terror, etc even if these rides are thrill based, they obviously pack people in. It's not like mickey mouse is the only reason a family of 4 is going to WDW, they want something the whole family can enjoy and for each of themselves, not just to have the teenagers sitting on a bench when their little sister goes and rides stitch, when the teens could be riding A:E and the baby sister would still ahve numerous things already catored to her.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

jakeman to say its not important, it's just a theme park then defies the whole point of walt disney and imagineering making a theme park in the first place. He could have made it so simple, a mere backlot studio experience near burnank, but he didn't because he knew that merry go rounds and average carinval rides were owned by people at parks who did not care about the their parks importance so long as they could charge money and make a buck.

He risked so much, and pushed his Imagineers, and even them on their own to do something far beyond that just making a buck.

If someone had come to him and said "walt, these folks want pirates of the carribean to be a rollercoaster ride" Now walt could have been stubborn and said "no! it will be a boat ride and the guests go down the waterfalls into the past and see the pirates" so then you have a polarizing thing, the audience will either like or not, and may find more of the same thing they hate i.e. EPCOT Center's future world and will say "this place sucks" and go home, but there will still be busloads of people going there to see it who never saw it yet, so the money would still be flowing.

Or, like EPCOT Explorer said, you could take the time to please both audiences and ensure money from both of them like actually putting something in the SSE descent and having it be up to the guests convenience to enjoy the ride the way they want, then everyones happy.

“Disneyland is a work of love. We didn’t go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money.”
-Walt Disney

I'm sure this applies to EPCOT too.

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

I have to go the mall, I'll see you all later :lol: :wave:

EPCOT Explorer, you're right it did apply to EPCOT the city and with card walker still trying to make EPCOT Center, they knew there was success in offering people different things than just characters and zoro, walt disney was on his death bed still "sketching" EPCOT on the ceiling with his mind and hands, and Card Walker made a gamble with making a permanent world's fair because it was "Disney" and Disney can do the impossible, not the expected like they do now.

EPCOT Center's flaws were with its concrete, lack of trees, lack of actual things to do, and those that could be done were 15 minute dark rides for the most part, and initial lack of characters, but no one has been able to prove that EPCOT Center was the apocolyptic company falter people say it was, or where they the ones bored on the rides because they needed to get home and watch MTV? People found EPCOT Center boring just as people find the Magic Kingdom just for kids, and yet people kept on coming, and when the parks....ALL OF THEM...saw attendance slippage in the late 80sm and early 90s, EPCOT Center got some new things when it became Epcot 94, as did the Magic Kingdom and MGM, and even with tower of terror Epcot still had more attendance than MGM, we know that because someone here alteast have us figures from that era.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Stop by the Disney Store for me!
:wave:

See ya.