Epcot's "Problem" - Not Exactly

UncleJeet

New Member
Original Poster
I just want to briefly comment on Epcot for a moment. I've seen many posts describing what should be done with Epcot, why it "doesn't work" and other things in a similar vein. However, I have yet to see one post that recognizes the real "problem" of Epcot, and without understanding that, no fruitful discussion can really take place.

The basic core of the problem is not that it is too expensive to maintain Future World and keep it futuristic - it's that the future is not all that exciting today. Stay with me on this, I'll explain.

When Epcot was built and opened, technology was experiencing an explosion of interest. Personal computers were just coming into their own. The Space Shuttle brought the excitement of space travel back into peoples' lives in a way not experienced since the race to the moon. There was a lot to be excited about, and people were excited. They wanted to learn about these new ideas and technologies that were poised to change the world. Epcot fit this need perfectly.

But as time has passed, the exciting technologies of yesterday's Epcot have come into reality and the everyday lives of people. The exciting promise of that era have come, been absorbed, and gone.

So in order for Epcot to come into a second age, so to speak, it needs to latch onto the ideas and technologies of today that promise an interesting and exciting future. The problem is - there aren't any.

The enormous growth of computing power means - in the minds of most people - that virtually anything is possible in the realm of technology, and if it's isn't possible just yet, it will be soon enough. There is no magic, no mystery, no exciting new things to uncover that are general enough to be palatable to the masses.

So what is Epcot to do? I think the idea of making Future World into Thrill Ride World is a horrible idea, because it just doesn't gel with World Showcase. Besides, wasn't Walt creating a place with Disneyland (and, by proxy, the other resorts) where parents and children can have fun together? How is that possible when Little Johnny isn't tall enough to ride any of the thrill rides, or Mommy has a weak heart and can't tolerate them? What sort of confrontations will World Showcase and Thrill Ride World have with each others' patrons?

I think a great approach for the Future World attractions would be to make them more what some of them once were. SE still does this, since the show hasn't changed, but it's in need of a good refurb. To this end, what I'm suggesting is this: Make Epcot a place to inform and inspire. . Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

But how can we do this when there's nothing terribly exciting on the horizon? Simple - present the history and evolution of some of the technologies that we take for granted today, and end the show with an inspiring fanfare for the promise of tomorrow. This used to be a common theme and approach on Disney rides, but has been replaced with the bigger, badder, faster mentality that so permeates the forgettable one day thrill parks that dot the American landscape.

I am a huge coaster buff. I love many types of thrill rides, but coasters above all. The country has many great coaster and thrill ride parks to choose from. However, Disney never loses my business to a one day thrill park because I go to Disney to experience Disney magic. That magic is not found in cheap, unimaginative thrills. It's found in details, imagination, and the ability to inspire.

Let us hope Disney never loses sight of what made it great in the first place....if it's not too late already.
 

WDWHeadBanger

New Member
I agree with you in most respects. However I do not believe that tommorow holds nothing. We are on a verge of medical breakthrough with something called Nano-technology which essentially is smaller than microscopic. That in its self would allow us to learn things about anatomy that was never before possible. Secondly, the space age is far from over. There are new engines called ion propulsion engines which will allow us to easily reach pluto and back in a MANNED space craft. Another great achievement. Also, the international space station is one step closer to a space city, and eventually colonization of another planet.

I could go on forever but I am not going to. You dont have to revert back to the past to make EPCOT great. You just have to use a little imagination and a little more of that disney magic. I agree that the imagineers should redesign a great deal in EPCOT. However I am not a fan of losing classic rides so you have to really weigh the trade offs.
 

UncleJeet

New Member
Original Poster
Yes, nanotech will save the world, cure cancer, and make us all invulnerable superheroes. Space exploration will take us to the edges of our solar system and beyond, we'll colonize the moon, and explore Mars on foot. It's all very exciting, yes - to a small group of people.

You can't put your interests in place of the general populace, though. Not if you expect your park to succeed.

For most people, nanotech, biotech, and space just aren't that interesting. The few that do find such things interesting tune in to the Discovery Channel for a daily dose of glossed over and simplified education on such things.

It's a concept that has ties to the reason that Saturday Morning Cartoons are mostly a thing of the past - kids get their cartoon fix daily, from shows they get excited about. Why wake up early Saturday morning to watch a weekly cartoon when you can pick up the same thing daily in syndication or on Nickelodean or The Disney Channel?

Overexposure has saturated the market for the niche group of people that would be jazzed about the latest breakthrough in biochem. Nanotech is exciting, but the most mass appeal aspects as would relate to a park only come when you project well into the future and get on the tempting sci-fi road of making it the cure for everything.

Sure, nanobots may cure different cancers soon enough - but didn't we already try Body Wars? People just don't care.
 

BwanaBob

Well-Known Member
Just because you can't / don't see any progress in front of you, doesn't mean you can't progress laterally!

Perfect example you mentioned:

WoL! The opportunities are endless for a pavillion that is 'seasonally' operated!

Why do you think WoM went to TT?
Why do you think Horizons went to M:S?

Look at the direction of the refurbishments.






and, Why do you think Imagination went to hell?...well, can't answer that one!:lol:
 

WDWHeadBanger

New Member
I guess that I forgot that the cure for almost any disease is uniteresting to people. I mean its not like the human race cares about health care or anything...

There IS a majority of people out there who are educated and/or would like to be educated further on what is coming. Why do you think that there are such things as discovery channel? They couldnt keep it around if it didnt do well as far as viewers go..
 

esauerh

New Member
I tend to agree with what you say as well.

Future World does hold that dilemma of staying cutting edge without being outdated. The MK's Tomorrowland faced similar problems before its renovation...what?...a decade ago. I think Imagineers realized that Tomorrowland would never be truly "tomorrow land" because of outdated architecture, attractions, etc. So, they reinvented it as a place of a tomorrow that never will be, a yesterday's look at tomorrow, a post-modern view of itself by not taking itself seriously.

Future World has the challenge of facing that while simultaneously being educational on these topics of world importance. And...also being a place where people would come and learn and -- let's face it -- spend money. If people don't show up, Disney can't afford to maintain it and keep it running.

Although I'm not too crazy about it, Innoventions is the place that holds those technologies of tomorrow. Or, at least it should, and not focus strictly on video games.

Epcot is my favorite theme park of all Disney properties. I'm thankful that it does take a look at how we fit into the big picture and how we impact our world.
 

BwanaBob

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by joviacdan
Hmmmm.....Errr, Ummmmm.......

Hey, How about them Red Sox?????

:lol: :lol: :lol:

...did I say something?

...I'm sorry...I think I was typing in my sleep again!

:hammer:
 

WDWFREAK53

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by joviacdan
Hmmmm.....Errr, Ummmmm.......

Hey, How about them Red Sox?????

Umm...are you crying over them like I am? :cry:

But...to answer your question...the reason Discovery has the ratings it does...

American Chopper
Monster Garage
The Great Bike Buildoff
Monster House

:lol:
 
J

joviacdan

Not crying yet, but losing patience.

I just posted that because the conversation seemed to be getting a little heated. Didn't want it to get out of hand.

Sorry if I offended anyone.
 

UncleJeet

New Member
Original Poster
Originally posted by WDWHeadBanger
I guess that I forgot that the cure for almost any disease is uniteresting to people. I mean its not like the human race cares about health care or anything...

There is no need for sarcasm. Nanotech is exciting yes, but the expectations and hype surrounding it far exceed the realities of the foreseeable future if you truly understand the current science going on. It will not be curing almost any disease any time soon, for example in spite of what the Discovery Channel tells you.

There IS a majority of people out there who are educated and/or would like to be educated further on what is coming. Why do you think that there are such things as discovery channel? They couldnt keep it around if it didnt do well as far as viewers go..

That was exactly my point - precisely because the Discovery Channel exists is why people would not want to come to a theme park to be given the same information. Just like kids don't want to wake up early Saturday morning to watch the same cartoons they can watch all week on cable. The Discovery Channel is great at glossing over all of the specifics of a science, making it exciting and interesting to the layperson, and giving them a sense of accomplishment of self education. It does little to actually educate, however - and I suspect that it inspires few people to pursue a legitimate and focused line of study on a subject. Those people learning and working in whatever field are more likely to turn to peer journals and the like for the latest news on the newest discoveries.

I could go to a park about computer animation and video games and think it was the greatest place in the world - and so would a handful of other people. Most people would find it stupid and horrible, and it is these people that must be catered to and the park developed for.

From a monetary standpoint, exploring the history and evolution of technologies makes sense. You don't have to keep updated to stay current. The ending inspirational bit of your attraction can even be very general, requiring only the most minor of updates at certain intervals. One set piece refurb per attraction every few years is much less expensive than one Future World refurb every few decades.
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
I think that in order for Epcot to be sucessful in the years to come, they will need to find a balance between the thrill rides and the other attractions.

I think "The Land" after Soarin' is complete will be a perfect example of this. The pavilion will still be very educational, allowing guests to make their own personal discoveries...but it will also have something that is thrilling.

I think WoL was designed perfectly, but it was never kept current, and the thrill ride was not great, especially once the next generation simulators began to appear.

One thing that would be benificial to Epcot (IMHO) would be for them to drop the "Future World" area, and change it to something along the lines of Discovery World...that is what one is doing when they go there....discovering about the seas, or energy, or the land.

Another issue between when Epcot opened, and today's world, is the rise of the ability to get information.

How many ppl had PC's in 1982? Not too many, and for those who did...what could you really do on it? How many cable TV channels did you have in 1982? (how many ppl even had cable) Back then, there was no History channel...no Discovery Channel. In 1982, if someone said the word "Internet" to you....what would you think they were talking about.

In short (too late for that:D ) ppl have so much more access to technology and information than they did when Epcot first opened. The stuff that they used to have (like the Energy Exchange) just isnt that exciting anymore (for most)

I think if Epcot sticks with more of a discovery theme, adds a balance of educational attractions and thrill rides (Who would not love to see a weather pavilion with a Stormrider (from TDS)...except have Stormrider try to fizzle out a hurricane approaching florida) then the park will be successfull. I think if the park become too educational or thrillride heavy...it is going to have a tough time.
 

Mateo1721

Member
wdwheadbanger,

I love the discovery channel, but their most popular shows focus primarily on two things, the past and mechanics. More people watch the Monster shows (house and garage) and American Chopper than any of the other shows combined (just a guess).

Unclejeet,

I think you hit the problem right on the head. Most people have become apathetic to invention and discovery. With processor speeds doubling every few months and new innovations in science occuring rather frequently, we have become accustomed to rapid innovention. Take for example the Segway. When it was in development, many major players in the tech industry touted it as the next big thing. When it was finally revealed to the public, most people didn't really care. That is why it is so hard to make Innoventions at Epcot so appealing. It comes across more as advertising for the latest and greatest products already available or soon to be released. Noone really knows what the future holds and so many people live with technology everyday, that the future no longer seems romantic and new.

Bwanabob,

I do agree that M:S is a step in the right direction. Commercial Space Flight is the future of space travel and Mars is the next frontier (at least I hope so). Test Track, however, seems no more than an advertisment for how safe GM cars are. They probably should have done more to highlight what is being done for the future development of automobiles and less on what is going on today.

As for the future of Epcot, it is my favorite park and I really hope that the imagineers can come up with new and exciting rides that also encompass the original spirit of Epcot, which is to inform and entertain.
 
J

joviacdan

I don't think Epcot should drop Future World at all!!!

That's one of my favorite things to do, is walk around Future World day or night. It's beautiful. The attractions are great (Spaceship Earth, Test Track, Innoventions).

There's something to be said about Epcot. It has a very peaceful feel to it. Magic Kingdom is always packed and there's so much to see wherever you look. MGM is just too small. Epcot is very well laid out, very well kept, and has just enough to keep you busy for a couple of days.
 

Hank Scorpio

New Member
In my view, the problem with Epcot is it's trying to fill boots that are far too big.

With the evolution of the human race, we are growing and developing new technologies faster then any theme park could ever keep up with. As soon as they build the ride/attraction/show that shows us something, its been done, dusted and the t-shirts have sold out and everyone is interested in something newer and more fascinating.

Disney, or anyone else for that matter could never obtain the funding to build such a park and keep it updated to a state that its always showing you the newest technology. At least, not without making it unaffordable for 99% of the population.

Epcot needs to change its focal point in order to survive. But I've got no idea what that could be to be successful. Thats up to WDI.
 

ClemsonTigger

Naturally Grumpy
Good Thoughts

UncleJeet,
Some interesting suggestions, followed by equally thoughtful comments. Let me paraphrase your initial premise. The current track of scientific advance does not capture the imagination of the population.

Bioengineering/genetics are not understood enough, the breakthroughs don't lead to a slam bang Ahhhhhhhhhh. What does discovery of a new protein or genetic link look like? What is the difference between MB, KB or GB to most?

It just ain't sexy like space travel or hovercraft or phasers or indoor electricity and plumbing. Besides, if anything, as a population we are becoming technologically adverse. People are still trying to get the 12:00 from flashing on their VCR while their neighbors are installing HDTV and a dish and TiVo.

So I think you are right in the problem that Future World (and to a certain degree Tomorrowland in MK can't keep up with technology and can't really make it interesting or fun. Even area science and technology museums with simple presentations have a difficult time updating and keeping interesting. That is what Innoventions was supposed to do and why it failed first.

With all that said (takes a deep breath). I would see the future as exploring "stabile" science. Like communication (add your updates at the end then possibly incorporate during ride upgrades), Living Seas if maintained will always draw, there is always more to upgrade there.

TT preshow should be changed to include more technology and there is plenty of room in the post show for "razzle dazzle" instead of Chevy's and Caddy's. They don't even have their own concept cars there...

The Land holds its own...but maybe a "thrill dark ride" can take us to the extremes of the land (Journey to the Center of the Earth), polar regions, deserts. Energy, instead of the lecture movies (although I like Bill and Ellen better than earlier vers.) Expand from dinosaurs to include a ride through hydroelectric generation, a Tesla like "Frankenstein" lab, and into a nuclear reactor (right in with the rods).

MS I think provides a good dose of space exploration but needs a post ride follow through. I like the idea of "weather" suggested many times, Health can be a rework of the life pavilion, scrap body wars for a water ride (as a red blood cell) through the circulatory system/immune system/organ function. Keep Cranium command.

Many have suggested returning to the Dreamfinder/Figment Imagination. That can be expanded with so many sensory effects now and can be given multiple pathways to allow for the ride to continue while another section gets updated to some new experience. This can also go 4D with the ride "docking" in the middle for the screen presentation.

I guess what I'm suggesting is a return to the original concept with flexability and updates built around a major ride.

Sorry...I ramble way too much...but soooo much potential
 

BwanaBob

Well-Known Member
Re: Good Thoughts

Originally posted by ClemsonTigger
TT preshow should be changed to include more technology and there is plenty of room in the post show for "razzle dazzle" instead of Chevy's and Caddy's. They don't even have their own concept cars there...
I agree.

TT gets slammed by so many because it 'doesn't fit'.
Did it ever occur to anyone that the intention was to showcase evolution in the part of our lives we almost show reverance to daily? -autos?

Safety.
Innoventions.
Environmental breakthroughs.

Yes...bring in the concept cars.
Make it a revolving 'GM car show' for the latest and greatest.

There was a contractural agreement between GM and Disney when they signed up to be a corporate sponser.
Advertising was part of that agreement (postshow).

TT fits. Think of the theme/premise behind and through the ride.

Everybody wants interactive/thought provoking pavillions at Epcot. E-tickets don't hurt either.

Give a little, people.:)
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
A CSI/forensics lab in the WoL would be great....explaining DNA...stuff like that. (they could even have a child fingerprinting svs come in (for community svs) or explain how the biometric readers at the gates that passholders have to use work.

I don't know how they would make it family friendly, but with the popularity of shows like CSI/Cold Case and whatnot, there is obviously interest.

I really hope they remodel and reopen WoL, and make it a bigger draw. So much can be done with the human body...they just need to capture ppls imagination and interests.

I also hope they one day open a weather pavilion, with a version of TDS Stormrider. Other things that could be addressed are not only the different aspects of weather, but also global warming, acid rain. A tornado simulator like Twister at USF would be neat (if it was better than Twister) Also, windtunnels that simulate the winds seen in different catagories of hurricanes. Even get the Weather Channel to sponsor, and allow ppl to go in front of the blue screen and play weatherman.
 

EpcotGrl

New Member
Re: Re: Good Thoughts

Originally posted by BwanaBob
I agree.

TT gets slammed by so many because it 'doesn't fit'.
Did it ever occur to anyone that the intention was to showcase evolution in the part of our lives we almost show reverance to daily? -autos?

Safety.
Innoventions.
Environmental breakthroughs.

Yes...bring in the concept cars.
Make it a revolving 'GM car show' for the latest and greatest.

There was a contractural agreement between GM and Disney when they signed up to be a corporate sponser.
Advertising was part of that agreement (postshow).

TT fits. Think of the theme/premise behind and through the ride.

Everybody wants interactive/thought provoking pavillions at Epcot. E-tickets don't hurt either.

Give a little, people.:)

A concept car showcase would rock my socks! I'd love to be able to check out stuff like the HyWire, etc....far more exciting than a Hummer H2 (or whatever's there now). I mean, I understand that they're trying to sell their cars, but I run thru that post-show without even a look...because I can see that crap ANYWHERE.

Yeah, I'm ranting now so I'll shut up ;)
 

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

Back
Top Bottom