Epcot - Was it possibly new technology advances?

[Disstevefan1]

Now I know in today's time that nostalgia plays a big role for veteran Disney goers that say Disney World was better when .... or the rides were better before they changed them back then....

However, aside from nostalgia alone, I think there might be some truth in that because during the 80s and the early 90s, there were oncoming new advances in technology that the general public was not privy to as we all are today. Disney utilized a great deal of what was to come or what was imagined to come in their rides to give us a look at what the future could hold.

Maybe, at one point in time, the creators thought that we had surpassed or advanced in technology so much that they decided no one would care for the elder yet more in-depth rides?

IMHO, I don't think the creators were thinking about "Tomorrow", but were more likely stuck in the present (and are possibly STILL stuck in the present)

But, I don't know. This kind of hit me at the end of my work day.

After stating all of that, what do you all think?

Do you think that nostalgia is really the reason we miss all the rides that were there early on, or were there more factors like oncoming technology?

(Please be kind guys. I like to hear everyone's opinion.)

I think Two things killed the spirit of EPCOT Center:
1 The World Wide Web. Now everything you want or need to know is at your fingertips. Prior to the World Wide Web, EPCOT Center was the perfect place to show folks the latest and Greatest advancements in technology.
2. The speed technology is advancing - Its simply too expensive to keep up and companies don't need to sponsor attractions at EPCOT because of point 1, the World Wide Web.

So maybe its one thing that killed EPCOT... the World Wide Web.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I think Two things killed the spirit of EPCOT Center:
1 The World Wide Web. Now everything you want or need to know is at your fingertips. Prior to the internet, EPCOT Center was the perfect place to show folks the latest and Greatest advancements in technology.
2. The speed technology is advancing - Its simply too expensive to keep up and companies don't need to sponsor attractions at EPCOT because of point 1, the World Wide Web.

So maybe its one thing that killed EPCOT... the World Wide Web.

Not buying that Epcot is dying because all the kiddies are googling the history and culture of ancient China instead of going to Epcot.

 

[TwilightZone]

Not buying that Epcot is dying because all the kiddies are googling the history and culture of ancient China instead of going to Epcot.

Kiddies don't look at that stuff even if at a theme park. But the older folk may look at the news and find out about a new invention. Like space x, self driving cars, etc. When I was a kid I would find out stuff from youtube too, so while not looking up it, a kid could learn about stuff that way.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Kiddies don't look at that stuff even if at a theme park. But the older folk may look at the news and find out about a new invention. Like space x, self driving cars, etc. When I was a kid I would find out stuff from youtube too, so while not looking up it, a kid could learn about stuff that way.

But that's like saying Epcot '82 was pointless because the local library had a full set of current Encyclopedia Britannica and Popular Machnics and Cosmos magazines.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Not buying that Epcot is dying because all the kiddies are googling the history and culture of ancient China instead of going to Epcot.

I was speaking of Future world specificly. World Showcase will continue to provide "Edutainment" about other lands and cultures as it was intended to be a year round worlds fair, even with the IP starting to seep in like the fictional Frozen and eventually the addition to France

 

[wdisney9000]

What you are saying is true. The concept of EPCOT back then was doable. As was stated, we didn't have instant access to every bit of information on the planet then like we do now.

Having access to every bit of information does not mean that information and technology can not be exciting and entertaining still. Take SSE for example. A person rides it for the first time and hears Judy Dench say, "Remember how easy it was to learn your ABC’s? Thank the Phoenicians". The person very well may not have known that , despite having instant access to every bit of information on the planet. Or perhaps they cant quite place the voice of the narrator of the ride and decide to Google it and learn that its Judy Dench and also discover that Jeromy Irons and Walter Kronkite were narrators before her and it sparks a conversation.

My point is that people having access to every bit of information on the planet does not mean that a park like Epcot should abandon the theme of edutainment. It can be used in a very advantageous fashion. And the fact that technology increases at a much faster rate today vs decades ago does not mean that the concepts of "tomorrow" can not be explored. Space, the ocean, time travel, etc are still very exciting.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Having access to every bit of information does not mean that information and technology can not be exciting and entertaining still. Take SSE for example. A person rides it for the first time and hears Judy Dench say, "Remember how easy it was to learn your ABC’s? Thank the Phoenicians". The person very well may not have known that , despite having instant access to every bit of information on the planet. Or perhaps they cant quite place the voice of the narrator of the ride and decide to Google it and learn that its Judy Dench and also discover that Jeromy Irons and Walter Kronkite were narrators before her and it sparks a conversation.

My point is that people having access to every bit of information on the planet does not mean that a park like Epcot should abandon the theme of edutainment. It can be used in a very advantageous fashion. And the fact that technology increases at a much faster rate today vs decades ago does not mean that the concepts of "tomorrow" can not be explored. Space, the ocean, time travel, etc are still very exciting.

That later part has been done already... remember Horizons? No matter how much someone tries, without advanced knowledge of things that are in the works, one cannot correctly make predictions. It just didn't have the pull power anymore, and anyone that denies that, have their emotions all intertwined and confused with history. It is no longer a pull um in kind of thing. It once was, yes, indeed it was, but, that was then and this is now. Different world, different time, different motivation, different access to details, different philosophy and lack of desire to spend mega-bucks to be lectured about science and exhibitions of things that are already reality.

They really haven't completely abandoned the edutainment thing. They have cut back on the quantity, but, they have still, in some way shown us things that we haven't seen before. But, look at the reaction. They change Soarin from California scenery to world wide scenery and the most vocal against the loss of edutainment cannot understand that showing others some things from the rest of the world is edutainment. Just over concern about slightly distorted due to the curved nature of the screen instead of the positive of the show. Proving that no one can do anything to make anyone happy when it comes to WDW. The whining about Epcot, instead of the celebration of new ideas and the new technology used to express it is palpable and short sighted. But, everyone insists that Epcot should be like it was when they opened it instead of realizing that the place has become a permanent location of wheel less food trucks instead of an entertaining place because no one was interested in the good old edutainment. It wasn't supporting itself anymore, but, we think it should go back to that.

 

[Phonedave]

Kiddies don't look at that stuff even if at a theme park. But the older folk may look at the news and find out about a new invention. Like space x, self driving cars, etc. When I was a kid I would find out stuff from youtube too, so while not looking up it, a kid could learn about stuff that way.

But that right there is part of the issue. "Self driving cars" is not an invention in and of itself. It's a cool thing that gets headlines because people can understand the benefits of a self driving car. So people look up information on it - in general.

What they are not looking up, or even aware of, is Mobile 5G networks, which permits the low latency necessary for self driving cars, New compression standards (J2K or HVEC) that allows video to be streamed over those 5G networks. Advances in AI, which allow the on board computer to make decisions,. Advances in lidar, which couples with the concept of sensor fusion allows the car to know where it is.

There is a whole load of technology that goes into "self driving card" that many people did not know about until the idea of the "self driving car" cam along and put it into a package that interests people.

 

[TwilightZone]

But that right there is part of the issue. "Self driving cars" is not an invention in and of itself. It's a cool thing that gets headlines because people can understand the benefits of a self driving car. So people look up information on it - in general.

What they are not looking up, or even aware of, is Mobile 5G networks, which permits the low latency necessary for self driving cars, New compression standards (J2K or HVEC) that allows video to be streamed over those 5G networks. Advances in AI, which allow the on board computer to make decisions,. Advances in lidar, which couples with the concept of sensor fusion allows the car to know where it is.

There is a whole load of technology that goes into "self driving card" that many people did not know about until the idea of the "self driving car" cam along and put it into a package that interests people.

True, but I don't think if disney did do a thing on self driving cars they would mention all of that either.

 

[LUVofDIS]

If I remember correctly, at the turn of the nineteenth century many scholars talked of technology as if it hit its pinnacle, all stories that could be written had been written and so on. Much has happened since then. Also I think it was believed that cars would never go faster than 30 mph or something like that. It was thought that the body couldn't handle much more, now look at the speed capabilities of even the slowest cars.

Tech is always moving forward, the only problem is as it continuously doubles itself it is less noticeable. Take the speed of a CAD video card, reviewers found that cards that have four times the processing power have close to zero noticeable difference, it is clocked in milliseconds, which the user hardly notices. This is a simple explanation of the review, there is much more to it.

My point is there is always something more that can be imagined, you just need the minds that can imagine it. EPCOT got lazy and is going the easy way and just trying to thrill people rather than amaze them. As mentioned above, Body Wars has so much to offer just with updates, and if Disney wants an IP than Inside/Out is perfect.

Any geological event would be awesome, hurricanes, tornados, ETC would make for a great attraction and learning event. But thought and creativity would be needed where just putting someone on a fast rollercoaster is easy to imagine.

The amount of learning is endless and exciting, so no, I don't think tech advances destroyed EPCOT, I think loss of vision is killing EPCOT.

 

[Cheekylittlerobot]

Personally, I think that Epcot could retain a similar message of Education, but trying to be futuristic might be hard. I think they could make Epcot good again without the need for top-tier technology. Also, I think they should do away with sponsorships, most rides seemed to go south when the sponsors pulled out.

 

[Phonedave]

True, but I don't think if disney did do a thing on self driving cars they would mention all of that either.

If I remember correctly, at the turn of the nineteenth century many scholars talked of technology as if it hit its pinnacle, all stories that could be written had been written and so on. Much has happened since then. Also I think it was believed that cars would never go faster than 30 mph or something like that. It was thought that the body couldn't handle much more, now look at the speed capabilities of even the slowest cars.

Tech is always moving forward, the only problem is as it continuously doubles itself it is less noticeable. Take the speed of a CAD video card, reviewers found that cards that have four times the processing power have close to zero noticeable difference, it is clocked in milliseconds, which the user hardly notices. This is a simple explanation of the review, there is much more to it.

My point is there is always something more that can be imagined, you just need the minds that can imagine it. EPCOT got lazy and is going the easy way and just trying to thrill people rather than amaze them. As mentioned above, Body Wars has so much to offer just with updates, and if Disney wants an IP than Inside/Out is perfect.

Any geological event would be awesome, hurricanes, tornados, ETC would make for a great attraction and learning event. But thought and creativity would be needed where just putting someone on a fast rollercoaster is easy to imagine.

The amount of learning is endless and exciting, so no, I don't think tech advances destroyed EPCOT, I think loss of vision is killing EPCOT.

@LUVofDIS explained what I was attempting to.

CAD video processing cards have quadrupled in power, but the impact is insignificant - at this point in time.

It is very hard to impress a person by telling them that their rending speed just went from 10 seconds to 9.9 seconds.

However, if you took that improvement, and combined it with other technological improvements to create something that is impressive to the "normal" person - say high speed rendering of body parts for some sort of surgical procedure (just winging it here) - that would be something that could be at EPCOT.

The point is, all of these "interesting" advances such as self driving cars, are underpinned and made possible by incremental increased in existing technology. Those incremental increases are not something the average person reads about, or looks up (in any format).

Technology has come to the stage where unless it really interests you, and you really want to get into the weeds about the details of new advances, it is just not that exciting anymore, especially when compared to the other media options that are now out there. Look at publications such as Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They used to be, well, Popular. They were articles on real, new, advances and the magazines had enough content and interest to be published monthly. Now both are less than monthly, and a lot of the stuff they write about are fluff pieces. Sounds a lot like what happened to Future World

 

[winstongator]

Well, that, and December 31,1983 happened - and then it all went downhill.

What happened in 1983 you ask? Divestiture of the "The Telephone Company". that is what happened.

I could go into the gory details, but basically the Bell Telephone Company had a monopoly on telephone service in the US. More than just a monopoly, it has set itself up with the sweetest of deals. It was a rate of return regulated industry - They were allowed by the government to set their rates in order to make a certain return on their investment. (I used to work in regulatory at one time).

Now for many utilities, that's a nice thing, a electric company buys it's transmission gear from some company for $100,000 and is allowed to be 6% on the investment, as long as they can show they needed that equipment.

However, the Bell Telephone Company bought almost all of their stuff from Western Electric. Who owned Western Electric you ask? Oh, they were a division of the Bell System as well. . The old Bell System was a cash cow.

So, what does this have to do with EPCOT? Bell Labs was also a division of The Bell System. Bell Labs was funded like you would not believe. They had both the money to pay the salary of top researchers, and the money to let them experiment on "random" things, with the hope that eventually they would find the results useful (profitable). There was no need to have a quick return on the investment, no stockholders were banging on the doors questioning what they were spending money on. They could just spend.

Bell Labs had over 33,000 patents.

Just a few of the things that came out of Bell Labs

Lasers
Transistors
UNIX
C
C++
Evidence of the Big Bang
Proving Matter is a Wave
Radio Astronomy
Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (Winning a Nobel Prize - 8 total won by works at Bell Labs)
Advances in Cryptography
Solar Cells
Many of the Quality Management tools used today

Bell Labs is still around today, as part of Nokia. While they still do research work, it is by no means as far flung and well funded as it once was.

Other companies had extensive research wings as well. Not just the Bell System. The current atmosphere of immediate profits and answering to The Street has really dialed back long term corporate research.

-dave

My grandpa worked at AT&T just before they were split up. The amount of tech that came out of bell labs is amazing. I heard something about them in a podcast and licensing technology to all potential customers. My bossed used their tech for a while to great success.

Weren't Nyquist and Shannon at Bell Labs too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Nyquist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon

 

[winstongator]

@LUVofDIS explained what I was attempting to.

CAD video processing cards have quadrupled in power, but the impact is insignificant - at this point in time.

It is very hard to impress a person by telling them that their rending speed just went from 10 seconds to 9.9 seconds.

However, if you took that improvement, and combined it with other technological improvements to create something that is impressive to the "normal" person - say high speed rendering of body parts for some sort of surgical procedure (just winging it here) - that would be something that could be at EPCOT.

The point is, all of these "interesting" advances such as self driving cars, are underpinned and made possible by incremental increased in existing technology. Those incremental increases are not something the average person reads about, or looks up (in any format).

Technology has come to the stage where unless it really interests you, and you really want to get into the weeds about the details of new advances, it is just not that exciting anymore, especially when compared to the other media options that are now out there. Look at publications such as Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They used to be, well, Popular. They were articles on real, new, advances and the magazines had enough content and interest to be published monthly. Now both are less than monthly, and a lot of the stuff they write about are fluff pieces. Sounds a lot like what happened to Future World

They're pretty much incremental, but I could fashion cool presentations on electronics and Moore's Law, communications & medical imaging. I could also make neat little games highlighting contributions from Nyquist & Shannon - Nyquist's sampling theorem & Shannon's channel capacity. Those two would neatly tie to why we need more bandwidth.

General Magic had a prototype iPhone around 20 years ago. It took an evolving tech ecosystem to provide an environment where the iPhone could become what it is today. Imagine an iPhone without the internet, WiFi, or the cellular data system. Those incremental changes, while not as revolutionary as the invention of the transistor (important point to me is diodes were discovered) are still critically important. It's also come so far that the scope is amazing.

 

[Phonedave]

They're pretty much incremental, but I could fashion cool presentations on electronics and Moore's Law, communications & medical imaging. I could also make neat little games highlighting contributions from Nyquist & Shannon - Nyquist's sampling theorem & Shannon's channel capacity. Those two would neatly tie to why we need more bandwidth.

General Magic had a prototype iPhone around 20 years ago. It took an evolving tech ecosystem to provide an environment where the iPhone could become what it is today. Imagine an iPhone without the internet, WiFi, or the cellular data system. Those incremental changes, while not as revolutionary as the invention of the transistor (important point to me is diodes were discovered) are still critically important. It's also come so far that the scope is amazing.

I'm not sure. I hate to say it, but I think you are giving the general public too much credit. I look at something like ATSC 3.0 an get excited about the potential, and other people I know think "OK, so it's TV"

Just because it is something that you can see the potential in, and become excited about it, does not mean majority of the population will.

-dave

 

[Phonedave]

My grandpa worked at AT&T just before they were split up. The amount of tech that came out of bell labs is amazing. I heard something about them in a podcast and licensing technology to all potential customers. My bossed used their tech for a while to great success.

Weren't Nyquist and Shannon at Bell Labs too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Nyquist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon

Yes, they were Bell Labs too. While they were definitely a seat of innovation, they were also out to make money.

"The Phone Company" had a lot of influence on technology at one time.

 

[KBLovedDisney]

My late uncle worked for our small town phone company a long time ago. The company was doing better when they started selling TV network cable boxes. Not 100% sure, but I do believe after that, the actual phone part of that company died.

 

[winstongator]

I'm not sure. I hate to say it, but I think you are giving the general public too much credit. I look at something like ATSC 3.0 an get excited about the potential, and other people I know think "OK, so it's TV"

Just because it is something that you can see the potential in, and become excited about it, does not mean majority of the population will.

-dave

My data point is a talk I gave to my daughter's kindergarten class about miniaturization, especially transistors. How small are they? Why make them smaller? They listened pretty attentively for 20 minutes and some of them even came up with some good questions. Now are kindergarteners a better or worse representation of the general public for that scenario? I'm not sure.

Yes, they were Bell Labs too. While they were definitely a seat of innovation, they were also out to make money.

"The Phone Company" had a lot of influence on technology at one time.

I look at old AT&T's monopoly as kind of a tax structure and some of that profit got funneled back to R&D.