-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Epcot's "Problem" - Not Exactly
- Thread starter UncleJeet
- Start date
WDWFREAK53
Well-Known Member
Re: Re: Re: Good Thoughts
Doesn't Test Track do this?
One time I went it was the SSR (in concept form)...another was the Cadillac XLR (not for sale to the public yet)...and the HY-WIRE. Granted, they let you SIT in the cars that are available to the public...but that's because concept cars cost ridiculous amounts of money in the engineering and the prototype...do you think they want kids with food climbing in and out of them?
Originally posted by EpcotGrl
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
Doesn't Test Track do this?
One time I went it was the SSR (in concept form)...another was the Cadillac XLR (not for sale to the public yet)...and the HY-WIRE. Granted, they let you SIT in the cars that are available to the public...but that's because concept cars cost ridiculous amounts of money in the engineering and the prototype...do you think they want kids with food climbing in and out of them?
CrackerJack
Member
You say you want educational exhibits, but do you really?
Last fall, we took the Undiscovered FutureWorld tour. It was wonderful. Our guide was the best. Anywho ... one of the things we did was go into "The House of the Future". (unsure at the time where this is) It was very cool with new tech products coming out for the home. My personal fave was a whirlpool with a built in plasma TV.
Had we not been on the tour, we would have never seen it. I'm sure most people never see it because they don't even know that it is there. And if they do happen to stumble upon it, they would just bypass it for the next BIG ride.
I general, I would say that people don't care about learning. They prefer to remain ignorant. I remember hearing some teens behind us complaining about UOE because it actually tried to teach them something. Many people just want to sit back and be entertained -- nothing more. If it teaches them, they aren't interested.
Another thread on this forum says basically the same thing about AK. You can take your time and learn something about animals. Or you can blow past them on your way to Kali River Rapids (fortunately you can ride it without listening to the story). It is sad in a way... our culture promotes many things -- knowledge is not one of them.
Last fall, we took the Undiscovered FutureWorld tour. It was wonderful. Our guide was the best. Anywho ... one of the things we did was go into "The House of the Future". (unsure at the time where this is) It was very cool with new tech products coming out for the home. My personal fave was a whirlpool with a built in plasma TV.
Had we not been on the tour, we would have never seen it. I'm sure most people never see it because they don't even know that it is there. And if they do happen to stumble upon it, they would just bypass it for the next BIG ride.
I general, I would say that people don't care about learning. They prefer to remain ignorant. I remember hearing some teens behind us complaining about UOE because it actually tried to teach them something. Many people just want to sit back and be entertained -- nothing more. If it teaches them, they aren't interested.
Another thread on this forum says basically the same thing about AK. You can take your time and learn something about animals. Or you can blow past them on your way to Kali River Rapids (fortunately you can ride it without listening to the story). It is sad in a way... our culture promotes many things -- knowledge is not one of them.
There have been some great comments so far. I like a lot of the ideas some of you have put out. A weather pavillion would be great, since weather research is fairly "stable" in the sense that the new things being learned to radically alter what's come before it. I don't ever want to see another chromakey station in a theme park, though. Bleh.
A great thrilling attraction (thrilling attraction != thrill ride) could be made out of the forces of nature. Hrmmm, a thought has just come to me in mid sentence.
What if we move the focus from specific technologies into, instead, branches of science? Earth Science, Life Science, Chemistry, etc... Each major science could have its own pavillion with various sponsors attached to each attraction/exhibit/demonstration inside.
The bulk of the pavillions would be dedicated to hard and fast science principles that don't change, so the update treadmill could be mostly avoided.
Each pavillion would have one major thrilling attraction, which would give a general overview of the history/evolution of the science and then go into the possibilities of the future as it relates to that science. Only the end set would need intervals of updating.
Or the attraction could avoid the content update problem by simply focusing on something really exciting about that science. Experiencing the forces of nature would be great for Earth Science, Life Science could get a technologically current Body Wars type of attraction, or any number of other things. The same goes for every science featured.
Attraction technology outlasts attraction content when you attempt to feature the future. However, attraction technology can last a long time if the content is general and stimulating enough.
A great thrilling attraction (thrilling attraction != thrill ride) could be made out of the forces of nature. Hrmmm, a thought has just come to me in mid sentence.
What if we move the focus from specific technologies into, instead, branches of science? Earth Science, Life Science, Chemistry, etc... Each major science could have its own pavillion with various sponsors attached to each attraction/exhibit/demonstration inside.
The bulk of the pavillions would be dedicated to hard and fast science principles that don't change, so the update treadmill could be mostly avoided.
Each pavillion would have one major thrilling attraction, which would give a general overview of the history/evolution of the science and then go into the possibilities of the future as it relates to that science. Only the end set would need intervals of updating.
Or the attraction could avoid the content update problem by simply focusing on something really exciting about that science. Experiencing the forces of nature would be great for Earth Science, Life Science could get a technologically current Body Wars type of attraction, or any number of other things. The same goes for every science featured.
Attraction technology outlasts attraction content when you attempt to feature the future. However, attraction technology can last a long time if the content is general and stimulating enough.
speck76
Well-Known Member
Maybe part of the problem is the park map.
When I first went to Epcot (1992) the park map was a sort of guide book that had a map of the interior of each pavilion and country, and it outlined every exhibit/shop/ride/restaurant in each pavilion and country....now they just have a glossy drawing of the whole park.
I took my parents to Epcot 2 weeks ago, it was their first visit to the park. They commented on how much time they probably saved with me leading the way, as they probably would have not seen half of the stuff if they had just used the map.
When I first went to Epcot (1992) the park map was a sort of guide book that had a map of the interior of each pavilion and country, and it outlined every exhibit/shop/ride/restaurant in each pavilion and country....now they just have a glossy drawing of the whole park.
I took my parents to Epcot 2 weeks ago, it was their first visit to the park. They commented on how much time they probably saved with me leading the way, as they probably would have not seen half of the stuff if they had just used the map.
Actually, I think that people are really interested in new technology and new science and what the future may hold. Look at how much people have swayed away from sit coms and dramas to reality shows and channels such as Discovery, TLC, History, etc.
One of the problems that Disney has is, to be blunt, Disney treats the subjects too lightly and too superficially. Kids learn more about these things in school than they do at Epcot - it's just not interesting. I think they really have to up the information content, make it appeal, well at least to a high-school level. They also need to focus on smaller aspects, too - instead of just "Motion" get into the automobile, something on aircraft/flying. Maybe something on trains.
Another problem is that they are way too ROI focused. They want (and this may be just as much the sponsor's fault) to pour a bunch of money into a big draw attraction and then spend as little on maintenance and operations. Doesn't work that way - they need constant attention and rework.
Future World DOES exist - just in a rather unexpected place - trade shows! Companies spend fortunes to show off their new products. That's what the world's fairs were all about - product marketing. Not big museum exhibits. I think that if anything, the sponsors have to be able to, and get more involved in - showing off their new technology and products. For instance ATT can have a bunch of their latest equipment on display. They can cyle it regulalry - they don't have to have elaborate set-ups. Same with GM - you can see more concept cars at a local auto show. They should be cycling them around there.
I don't think you can even dissasociate discovery and the future - that IS what drives the future. I am not sure that Future World was totally about a world of the future so much as giving an idea of where things may be headed in the future. Science is growing all the time.
OK, part II - I have been having a discussion about technology, and discussing this question in particular - has there been any truly new technology in the past 15 years (since the microcomputer?) Nanotech kind of gave one answer - thanks!. But really, everything has just been a bigger, better, faster revision fo something before it. The reason for the question is that I believe that a major crises IS happening in the corporate world, where companies are no longer developing better products and technology, but just focusing on better marketing and financing, and that is having a long term effect of stalling both growth as well as undermining the whole idea of capitalism in that the better product will ultimately prevail.
One of the problems that Disney has is, to be blunt, Disney treats the subjects too lightly and too superficially. Kids learn more about these things in school than they do at Epcot - it's just not interesting. I think they really have to up the information content, make it appeal, well at least to a high-school level. They also need to focus on smaller aspects, too - instead of just "Motion" get into the automobile, something on aircraft/flying. Maybe something on trains.
Another problem is that they are way too ROI focused. They want (and this may be just as much the sponsor's fault) to pour a bunch of money into a big draw attraction and then spend as little on maintenance and operations. Doesn't work that way - they need constant attention and rework.
Future World DOES exist - just in a rather unexpected place - trade shows! Companies spend fortunes to show off their new products. That's what the world's fairs were all about - product marketing. Not big museum exhibits. I think that if anything, the sponsors have to be able to, and get more involved in - showing off their new technology and products. For instance ATT can have a bunch of their latest equipment on display. They can cyle it regulalry - they don't have to have elaborate set-ups. Same with GM - you can see more concept cars at a local auto show. They should be cycling them around there.
I don't think you can even dissasociate discovery and the future - that IS what drives the future. I am not sure that Future World was totally about a world of the future so much as giving an idea of where things may be headed in the future. Science is growing all the time.
OK, part II - I have been having a discussion about technology, and discussing this question in particular - has there been any truly new technology in the past 15 years (since the microcomputer?) Nanotech kind of gave one answer - thanks!. But really, everything has just been a bigger, better, faster revision fo something before it. The reason for the question is that I believe that a major crises IS happening in the corporate world, where companies are no longer developing better products and technology, but just focusing on better marketing and financing, and that is having a long term effect of stalling both growth as well as undermining the whole idea of capitalism in that the better product will ultimately prevail.
I've seen it a couple of times. Most of the products are available now, or are no longer very new, but it's still interesting. When I was down last October for my wedding/honeymoon, my best man took that tour and when the House of the Future went BSOD, he thought it was amusing. (BSOD=Blue Screen of Death. Apparently the House of the Future runs off Windows NT).
I completely agree. You have to put more entertainment than education into something in order to get people to pay attention. This is why channels like Discovery are successful, but it's also why they fail at the same time. People watch an hour of programming and then assume they've just received an education. It is supposed to stimulate an interest in pursuing further study, but most people see the shows as much more than that.
With that in mind, Epcot can still achieve the same thing by making science and technology entertaining and stimulating, and hopefully inspire at least a few people that come through its turnstiles to go out and learn more.
The current idea is not so much that the better product will prevail, but that the cheaper to produce, faster to break and need replacing product will prevail. After all, why sell one person one toaster that lasts a lifetime when you can sell that same person fifty toasters that they have had to replace throughout the years.
There have been many innovations in science, but since most of them have been facilitated by computing advances, it's often difficult to distinguish them apart.
Medical imaging has come a long way in fifteen years, for example. Visualization in general, of any concept, has come a very long way in fifteen years due to the microcomputer.
Cell phones, PDA's, the commercialization and mass availability of the Internet....the whole of communications has come light years in the past fifteen years.
Medical procedures made possible through the miniaturization trend have come into the world. DNA research, astronomy, weather data collection and forecasting have all made long leaps due to computing advances.
The computer, specifically the personal computer, has been the driving force behind many, if not most, scientific and commercial innovation since its introduction. This doesn't mean that the computer made people smarter, it just made things testable, workable, and practical a lot faster.
In the end, it's very difficult to cite an scientific advance made in the past fifteen years that did not rely on computing to a large degree. Industry drives the demand of faster, better, stronger computing - and since computing advances are still coming at a lightning pace, it's safe to assume that science and industry need it to.
Look at it this way. The crafting and using of tools by early man allowed them to begin advancing in ways they could not have conceived before them. As their knowledge grew, their tools grew better, more specialized, and facilitate further advancing. The computer is the modern day version of that concept.
Right, computer technology has alowed a great leap in advances, but all the theories have been there for a while. Resolution is better - not new. Cell phones - already existed, only now we can make them cheaper and clearer.
I am trying to find something that is anew breakthrough in concept. A new theory of how to do something. LEDs came to mind, but they have been around for a long time. There has to be SOMETHING out there.
Perhaps with all the current sponsors leaving, perhaps Disney can instead of focusing on one big sponsor, attract a bunch of little ones. For WoL, instead of Met Life, just get a bunch of Biotech companies to put up small exhibits. The PBS rule - you can't compare your product (no "the best product" kinda stuff), and no calls to action (no "make sure your next drug says"). But why not let them show off a little, and in return that will drive them to develop a better display.
Perhaps this is something that is different in different parts of the country, but if anything I think people today are much more intersted in learning - Eco Tourism and Culture Tourism are booming, The big trends in Television are torwards tech shows and how-to's. But maybe this isn't true for Disney's market?
Everybody has a hobby, and for many people that is some kind of technology (be it cars, palnes, home improvement, power tools, medicine/alternative medicine) From what I remember of innoventions, the content in there was about the same as a combined Best buy and Home Depot. It's not just that the technology is changing too fast, it's that it is not being covered or treated well, either.
I am trying to find something that is anew breakthrough in concept. A new theory of how to do something. LEDs came to mind, but they have been around for a long time. There has to be SOMETHING out there.
Perhaps with all the current sponsors leaving, perhaps Disney can instead of focusing on one big sponsor, attract a bunch of little ones. For WoL, instead of Met Life, just get a bunch of Biotech companies to put up small exhibits. The PBS rule - you can't compare your product (no "the best product" kinda stuff), and no calls to action (no "make sure your next drug says"). But why not let them show off a little, and in return that will drive them to develop a better display.
Perhaps this is something that is different in different parts of the country, but if anything I think people today are much more intersted in learning - Eco Tourism and Culture Tourism are booming, The big trends in Television are torwards tech shows and how-to's. But maybe this isn't true for Disney's market?
Everybody has a hobby, and for many people that is some kind of technology (be it cars, palnes, home improvement, power tools, medicine/alternative medicine) From what I remember of innoventions, the content in there was about the same as a combined Best buy and Home Depot. It's not just that the technology is changing too fast, it's that it is not being covered or treated well, either.
ClemsonTigger
Naturally Grumpy
SamatBCV
Member
First, please keep in mind that I'm not trying to offend anyone here. That being said, just because it may be hard for us to imagine anything really exciting left to be discovered merely shows our lack of vision. If you go back to almost any period in history, the majority of people would have said that it couldn't get much better, but it has (at least in terms of technology). Further, while it may be easy to trivialize that many advancements we see are just improvements on existing technology such as doing the same job faster or with smaller equipment, those are the things that many people desire in future technologies. In fact most historical advancements are improvements on technology that exists at the time. Even when we do have a technological breakthrough, it usually means doing the same job faster or easier. CoP is gives many examples of this (my favorite being cooking... taking cooking in an old stove to a microwave today). Again I'm not pointing fingers. You can see that I'm not giving some grand vision for the future, but that is not what I do. There are, however people that do think that way and those are the people best suited to be imagineers that build new attractions at Epcot.
WDWHeadBanger
New Member
We are still talking entertainment here. Just because people already know about something, doesnt mean that they cant make a fun ride out of something. I am pretty sure that almost everyone new about basic human anatomy when body wars came out. The same about communication history with SE. The same with transportation in World of Motion. The point is, yes EPCOT is educational but it is also there for entertainment purposes. You cant make a ride out of something that nobody knows about and have it be fun at the same time....
speck76
Well-Known Member
I think mixing entertainment and education is the key.
To teach ppl without them feeling that they are learning, or being lectured too.
I had made a comment like this on another recent epcot thread (discussing the use of characters at Epcot), but I will sum it up.
At The Living Seas, instead of having a bunch of scientific diagrams and pictures to look at in the aquarium area, why not have some flat panel monitors hung up, and have Crash or Mr. Ray from Finding Nemo discuss the animals. Not only can a little entertainment or humor be thrown in to the video, but it is also educational.
Is a kid more likely to read about a fish, or pay attention to a character from a movie talk about the fish.
Creating some sort of a edutainment environment would not only keep the little one's entertained, but they would not realize that they were being taught.
Another perfect example of this is UoE. I love the ride in its current state. While I found the previous ride interesting, and educational, even I would get a little bored, as the info was presented in a very dry manner.
To teach ppl without them feeling that they are learning, or being lectured too.
I had made a comment like this on another recent epcot thread (discussing the use of characters at Epcot), but I will sum it up.
At The Living Seas, instead of having a bunch of scientific diagrams and pictures to look at in the aquarium area, why not have some flat panel monitors hung up, and have Crash or Mr. Ray from Finding Nemo discuss the animals. Not only can a little entertainment or humor be thrown in to the video, but it is also educational.
Is a kid more likely to read about a fish, or pay attention to a character from a movie talk about the fish.
Creating some sort of a edutainment environment would not only keep the little one's entertained, but they would not realize that they were being taught.
Another perfect example of this is UoE. I love the ride in its current state. While I found the previous ride interesting, and educational, even I would get a little bored, as the info was presented in a very dry manner.
Mateo1721
Member
You make a really good point samat. It is hard for us to really see what is in store for the future. Maybe a breakthrough in science will allow us to do things we never thought possible (time travel, travelling faster than the speed of light, discovering parallel universes). Jules Verne wrote stories about travelling to the moon and submarines. No one could even imagine at the time that these things would be true. What Epcot truly needs is some better imaginative ideas and concepts, and less advertisments and promotion.
EpcotGrl
New Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Thoughts
OK, I'm very jealous now...every time I went they just had boring old cars we could see cruising the road... *sigh* I'd totally freak to be able to ogle the HyWire... And certainly they don't want the messies climbing in and out of 'em...it's just I've never gotten to see the nifty ones *sniffle*
I leave in 11 days!!! *crosses finger for HyWire*
OK, I'm very jealous now...every time I went they just had boring old cars we could see cruising the road... *sigh* I'd totally freak to be able to ogle the HyWire... And certainly they don't want the messies climbing in and out of 'em...it's just I've never gotten to see the nifty ones *sniffle*
I leave in 11 days!!! *crosses finger for HyWire*
Tocpe
Member
What is Epcot's Problem?
I have pondered this question for many, many years. Epcot is my favorite Disney park and I have watched it become a ghost of it’s former self over the last 10 or so years. I’m sorry about the post being so long, but I’ve done a lot of thinking about this. Here's my 2 cents on the subject, for what they're worth :
Bringing in a new attraction won't help Epcot at this stage. The problem runs too deep, all the way to the very core of Epcot. And I think most of it lies within Future World.
The problem is that Epcot has lost it's focus.
But what is/was that focus?
Bear with me here. Epcot is a very complex and unique park. And it can sometimes be very confusing to figure out exactly what it's "theme" is, or was...
Back when Epcot was Epcot Center, it was a different park than it is today. Some of you old timers can attest to this. The park had a different feeling, a different purpose. Today the park is suffering from schizophrenia. It has tried to be too many different things over the years.
I believe when it opened, the message was loud and clear, but over the years if has been muddled by people (management & WDC decision makers) that never truly understood what Epcot Center was meant to be. I think some of them look at Epcot as simply a "larger Tomorrowland". Which it is not, nor has it ever been.
Sure, Epcot Center was supposed to be a permanent "World's Fair". It used cutting edge technology to operate, educate, entertain and it demonstrated this fact to the public. But it was also supposed to be more than that. It was about celebrating humanity, it’s many triumphs and it's potential.
It was supposed to inspire, excite, educate and entertain guests about the hope and potential of the future of humanity.
Want proof? Here's an except from the front inner flap of the book "Walt Disney's EPCOT: Creating the New World of Tomorrow". A book sold in the park at its opening documenting to creation of Epcot Center ISBN:0-8190-0819-0:
"...Epcot Center is a fabulous permanent world's fair with two major elements: Future World, a prophetic "Community of Ideas," and World Showcase, and enduring "Community of Nations."
"Each of the pavilions in Future World presents its own highly original and enlightening show exploring a topic vital to our future. In Spaceship Earth, the story of communications is told in a ride that spirals through the landmark globe and encompasses thousands of years, ending in a glimpse of the future. Similarly, insights into the past, present, and future of energy, agriculture, life styles, the seas, transportation, and technology are served up in the delightful and imaginative Disney style, usually in a "ride-through" presentation that combines film, animation, special effects, the amazing lifelike Audio-Animatronics performers, and inventive displays."
And from page 28 of the same book, in a introduction by Marty Sklar:
"...we are developing Epcot Center: a permanent world's fair of imagination, discovery, education and exploration that combines Disney entertainment and communication skills with the knowledge and predictions for the future of authorities from industry, the academic world, and the professions. Our goal is to inspire the visitors who come here, so that they will be turned on to the positive potential of the future and want to participate in making choices that will shape it. We believe that in a world where cynicism and negativism abound, there is another story, and we have chosen, with forethought and conviction, to tell it, and to be the voice of optimism."[/blue]
Marty goes on to say:
"And in measuring the success of our efforts, it may be helpful to judge whether we have achieved the following goals outlined by our chairman and chief executive, Card Walker, in an address to the Urban Land Institute on October 5, 1976:
- First we want Epcot to be a "demonstration and proving ground for prototype concepts"... constantly testing and demonstrating practical applications of new concepts, ideas, and emerging technology from creative centers around the world.
- Second, we want Epcot to provide an "ongoing forum of the future" where the best creative thinking of industry, government, and academia is exchanged regarding practical solutions to the real needs of mankind.
- A third important objective we have established is for Epcot to be a "communicator to the world," utilizing the growing spectrum of information transfer to bring new knowledge in the most effective ways to the world community.
- Last and possibly most important of all, we want Epcot to be "a permanent international people-to-people exchange"...advancing the cause of world understanding among its citizens."
Sounds like a pretty cool place to visit to me. How about you? I also think today more than ever, in a world where technology surrounds like in every way, a theme park like they are describing would embrace the techno-culture that is now doubt developing.
So what happened?
Well, in the beginning I think Epcot Center pretty much hit it's mark. But as new folks came into the Disney organization Epcot Center began to lose it's original, unique purpose. For example, look at the name change: Epcot Center -> Epcot '95 -> Epcot. It seems the new folks didn't understand Epcot Center, or didn't want to understand it. So they started fiddling with it. And Epcot soon started to drift. This is what makes me wonder about the "bigger Tomorrowland" theory.
Perhaps they looked at Future World and saw all the gadgets and techno-speak and futuristic stuff and said, "Hey, it's like a bigger Tomorrowland!". Let's just fill it with more "future gadgets, and neat stuff". They completely missed the underlying humanity issue and purpose of Epcot Center.
This explains the conversion of World of Motion to Test Track. Don't get me wrong, I love TT. I think it's a great ride. I just don't think it's an Epcot attraction. There's no story, no connection to humanity, no hope, no promise. Nothing but thrills.
And who says you can't have thrills and inspiration at the same time?
Nobody, and yet TT is missing the inspiration of the original Epcot Center.
Now I'm not gonna get into the whole Horizons/M:S debate. But I think you know how I feel. I'm not totally sold on the idea of M:S fitting into Epcot's concept either.
There was a LOT of thought and planning that went into Epcot Center. It makes me sad to think about the condition it's in today, and what it could have been today if it's original concept hadn't been watered down so much.
As an example of the attention to detail that went into the planning of Epcot Center, notice the layout of the original pavilions. For instance, let’s say it’s 1988, the Living Seas is open and Wonders of Life has yet open. You’re standing at the entrance of Epcot Center, looking towards Spaceship Earth On your right would be, The Living Seas, The Land and Journey into Imagination. On your left would be Universe of Energy, Horizons, and World of Motion.
Notice a pattern yet? On the right we have human/natural subjects. On the left we have technical/mechanical subjects. Of course when they plopped down Wonders of life in between Horizons and UoE, it kinda threw off the balance. IMHO, WoL should have gone in between The Land and JII. It would have been a perfect transition between the story of humanity’s interaction with the Land (nutrition, environmental effect) -> Health (WoL) -> the mind (imagination). But that’s just my humble opinion.
So there's my long winded answer to "What's Epcot's Problem?", and why. Comments?
I have pondered this question for many, many years. Epcot is my favorite Disney park and I have watched it become a ghost of it’s former self over the last 10 or so years. I’m sorry about the post being so long, but I’ve done a lot of thinking about this.
Here's my 2 cents on the subject, for what they're worth :Bringing in a new attraction won't help Epcot at this stage. The problem runs too deep, all the way to the very core of Epcot. And I think most of it lies within Future World.
The problem is that Epcot has lost it's focus.
But what is/was that focus?
Bear with me here.
Epcot is a very complex and unique park. And it can sometimes be very confusing to figure out exactly what it's "theme" is, or was... Back when Epcot was Epcot Center, it was a different park than it is today. Some of you old timers can attest to this. The park had a different feeling, a different purpose. Today the park is suffering from schizophrenia. It has tried to be too many different things over the years.
I believe when it opened, the message was loud and clear, but over the years if has been muddled by people (management & WDC decision makers) that never truly understood what Epcot Center was meant to be. I think some of them look at Epcot as simply a "larger Tomorrowland". Which it is not, nor has it ever been.
Sure, Epcot Center was supposed to be a permanent "World's Fair". It used cutting edge technology to operate, educate, entertain and it demonstrated this fact to the public. But it was also supposed to be more than that. It was about celebrating humanity, it’s many triumphs and it's potential.
It was supposed to inspire, excite, educate and entertain guests about the hope and potential of the future of humanity.
Want proof? Here's an except from the front inner flap of the book "Walt Disney's EPCOT: Creating the New World of Tomorrow". A book sold in the park at its opening documenting to creation of Epcot Center ISBN:0-8190-0819-0:
"...Epcot Center is a fabulous permanent world's fair with two major elements: Future World, a prophetic "Community of Ideas," and World Showcase, and enduring "Community of Nations."
"Each of the pavilions in Future World presents its own highly original and enlightening show exploring a topic vital to our future. In Spaceship Earth, the story of communications is told in a ride that spirals through the landmark globe and encompasses thousands of years, ending in a glimpse of the future. Similarly, insights into the past, present, and future of energy, agriculture, life styles, the seas, transportation, and technology are served up in the delightful and imaginative Disney style, usually in a "ride-through" presentation that combines film, animation, special effects, the amazing lifelike Audio-Animatronics performers, and inventive displays."
And from page 28 of the same book, in a introduction by Marty Sklar:
"...we are developing Epcot Center: a permanent world's fair of imagination, discovery, education and exploration that combines Disney entertainment and communication skills with the knowledge and predictions for the future of authorities from industry, the academic world, and the professions. Our goal is to inspire the visitors who come here, so that they will be turned on to the positive potential of the future and want to participate in making choices that will shape it. We believe that in a world where cynicism and negativism abound, there is another story, and we have chosen, with forethought and conviction, to tell it, and to be the voice of optimism."[/blue]
Marty goes on to say:
"And in measuring the success of our efforts, it may be helpful to judge whether we have achieved the following goals outlined by our chairman and chief executive, Card Walker, in an address to the Urban Land Institute on October 5, 1976:
- First we want Epcot to be a "demonstration and proving ground for prototype concepts"... constantly testing and demonstrating practical applications of new concepts, ideas, and emerging technology from creative centers around the world.
- Second, we want Epcot to provide an "ongoing forum of the future" where the best creative thinking of industry, government, and academia is exchanged regarding practical solutions to the real needs of mankind.
- A third important objective we have established is for Epcot to be a "communicator to the world," utilizing the growing spectrum of information transfer to bring new knowledge in the most effective ways to the world community.
- Last and possibly most important of all, we want Epcot to be "a permanent international people-to-people exchange"...advancing the cause of world understanding among its citizens."
Sounds like a pretty cool place to visit to me. How about you? I also think today more than ever, in a world where technology surrounds like in every way, a theme park like they are describing would embrace the techno-culture that is now doubt developing.
So what happened?
Well, in the beginning I think Epcot Center pretty much hit it's mark. But as new folks came into the Disney organization Epcot Center began to lose it's original, unique purpose. For example, look at the name change: Epcot Center -> Epcot '95 -> Epcot. It seems the new folks didn't understand Epcot Center, or didn't want to understand it. So they started fiddling with it. And Epcot soon started to drift. This is what makes me wonder about the "bigger Tomorrowland" theory.
Perhaps they looked at Future World and saw all the gadgets and techno-speak and futuristic stuff and said, "Hey, it's like a bigger Tomorrowland!". Let's just fill it with more "future gadgets, and neat stuff". They completely missed the underlying humanity issue and purpose of Epcot Center.
This explains the conversion of World of Motion to Test Track. Don't get me wrong, I love TT. I think it's a great ride. I just don't think it's an Epcot attraction. There's no story, no connection to humanity, no hope, no promise. Nothing but thrills.
And who says you can't have thrills and inspiration at the same time?
Nobody, and yet TT is missing the inspiration of the original Epcot Center.
Now I'm not gonna get into the whole Horizons/M:S debate. But I think you know how I feel. I'm not totally sold on the idea of M:S fitting into Epcot's concept either.
There was a LOT of thought and planning that went into Epcot Center. It makes me sad to think about the condition it's in today, and what it could have been today if it's original concept hadn't been watered down so much.
As an example of the attention to detail that went into the planning of Epcot Center, notice the layout of the original pavilions. For instance, let’s say it’s 1988, the Living Seas is open and Wonders of Life has yet open. You’re standing at the entrance of Epcot Center, looking towards Spaceship Earth On your right would be, The Living Seas, The Land and Journey into Imagination. On your left would be Universe of Energy, Horizons, and World of Motion.
Notice a pattern yet? On the right we have human/natural subjects. On the left we have technical/mechanical subjects. Of course when they plopped down Wonders of life in between Horizons and UoE, it kinda threw off the balance. IMHO, WoL should have gone in between The Land and JII. It would have been a perfect transition between the story of humanity’s interaction with the Land (nutrition, environmental effect) -> Health (WoL) -> the mind (imagination). But that’s just my humble opinion.
So there's my long winded answer to "What's Epcot's Problem?", and why. Comments?
Absolutely! And I am not even sure that it is confusing it with Tomorrowland or anything like that. I think it gets down to something much more basic...
One thing that I notice in this thread, and you see this everywhere in the world around us, too, is that people split communication into Education and Entertainment. You can mix them up a little, but the terms still mean opposite things, as the current thinking goes. And I think that Disney got wrapped up in that, too.
I have said a couple of times that I think Disney has, lately become too focused on Storyline in their rides. In Epcot, this shows up as being unable to combine both the concept of knowledge and entertainment. Epcot didn't fit in their minds since it was not pure entertainment, so they ended up trying to fit it into that. SO you started seing them focus more on the storyline and the thrills and less and less on the subject itself. Test Track was one step away from that - you saw a little baout car testing but it really didn't cover much material. Mission:Space is primarilly a setting, and not an instructional part Perhaps if they added a pre-showe and post show - perhaps included a data gathering part or something...
There is a bit of a leap of faith in Epcot - that people will actually be interested in a topic. I always hear this comment on the boards and when I am down there - "I don't want to learn". Is this something that is so prevalent today? Personally I don't think so - take a look around the next time you are in a bookstore - where are all the books? Where are all the people reading those books, and how many of them are in non-fictional areas? The old Education is Recitation philosophy has to go. Education IS entertainment if it is done right.
speck76
Well-Known Member
Great post Tocpe!
I think that part of Epcot's issues came to be due to change in management a few years after the park opened (When Eisner came on board) and the resulting change in management philosophy.
Epcot opened 11 years after the Magic Kingdom...MGM opened less than 7 years after Epcot. Management lost focus on Epcot due to the opening of the new park, and then the new park (which opened with image issues of its own) required more attention. (I dont think anyone could say Epcot opened with the 1/2 day park that plagued MGM at its opening (or DAK now). To imagine also that MGM grew out of the plan to add a Movie pavilion to Future world...tell me...where does that fit in? Could you imagine...the land...the living seas....the universe of energy...movies? That does not sound right.
I think part of the problem also is a result of the need for sponsorship. In the 22 years that Epcot has been open. why have only 2 countries been added, and what happened to the countries that were at one time due to open? Also, ride upgrades at updates have only been done during changes in sponsorship. SSE was updated when AT&T took over, resulting in many more AT&T logos throughout the ride. What will happen to SSE (and ES) now that AT&T has pulled out? If Epcot finds a new sponsor, will the ride recieve another upgrade, besides replacing the AT&T logos with new logos?
I can understand the need for certain pavilions (well, only the land) that may need some type of sponsor, simply because actual research is being done there. Why did the Wonder's of Life need sponsorship? And, since there is no longer a sponsor, does that explain the closing?
What Epcot needs is to clearly define the mission of the park. Once defined, they need to stick with their plans, and see them through.
I think that part of Epcot's issues came to be due to change in management a few years after the park opened (When Eisner came on board) and the resulting change in management philosophy.
Epcot opened 11 years after the Magic Kingdom...MGM opened less than 7 years after Epcot. Management lost focus on Epcot due to the opening of the new park, and then the new park (which opened with image issues of its own) required more attention. (I dont think anyone could say Epcot opened with the 1/2 day park that plagued MGM at its opening (or DAK now). To imagine also that MGM grew out of the plan to add a Movie pavilion to Future world...tell me...where does that fit in? Could you imagine...the land...the living seas....the universe of energy...movies? That does not sound right.
I think part of the problem also is a result of the need for sponsorship. In the 22 years that Epcot has been open. why have only 2 countries been added, and what happened to the countries that were at one time due to open? Also, ride upgrades at updates have only been done during changes in sponsorship. SSE was updated when AT&T took over, resulting in many more AT&T logos throughout the ride. What will happen to SSE (and ES) now that AT&T has pulled out? If Epcot finds a new sponsor, will the ride recieve another upgrade, besides replacing the AT&T logos with new logos?
I can understand the need for certain pavilions (well, only the land) that may need some type of sponsor, simply because actual research is being done there. Why did the Wonder's of Life need sponsorship? And, since there is no longer a sponsor, does that explain the closing?
What Epcot needs is to clearly define the mission of the park. Once defined, they need to stick with their plans, and see them through.
ClemsonTigger
Naturally Grumpy
Great Discussion