It didn't work? Really? So all those throngs of happy people I saw at EPCOT Center in the 1980s and 90s were just high on pixie dust or faking it?[.quote]
Please allow me to rephrase what I said. You are right, Epcot did work...in 1982. If Epcot's attractions had continued to remain hugely popular, Disney would have kept them operating. Perhaps it was the collection of attractions, all the little pieces working together, that has caused Epcot to change. At opening, Epcot was one big Audio Animatronic extravaganza. By 1996, it was decided to change Epcot a bit and attempt to attract a wider audience by introducing a thrill ride. Thus, World of Motion gave way to Test Track.
EPCOT Center did work -- and quite well -- for a decade. That's really the maximum length those pavilions were expected to go when the park was built and conceived. There's a reason why the original corporate sponsors/partners signed 10-year contracts with Disney.
By the early 90s, it was time to update most of the pavilions in FW ... Seas was more recent so it was fine still ... and Imagination was about to debut its third 3D film to keep it fresh (even if it was the worst of the lot and is still running 15 years later with no end date in sight.)
TT came about for a variety of reasons, most of them having little to do with WoM being 'tired' ... the first reason was Disney's desire to do anything to get GM to put up big bucks to remain a sponsor ... then there was the WDI angle since they had a new sophisticated ride system they were anxious to bring into a park .... and there was GM's desire to have 'its' pavilion more reflective of the company's products (WoM could have been sponsored by anyone until you got to the showroom at the very end) ... and finally there was a desire by Disney to add a more 'thrilling' aspect to the park (many prior ideas from a few Space concepts to thrill rides like Matterhorn and Mt. Fuji had been tabled).
So, TT was the perfect confluence of ideas and agendas ... and WoM was quickly killed and gutted.
If Disney continued to operate many of the original attractions today (even updated versions of them), Epcot would not be nearly as exciting or appealing today. Are you trying to tell me Epcot would be better if Horizons, World of Motion, the original Spaceship Earth, the Universe of Energy, and The Living Seas were all still operating today? If that's what you are arguing, it is my personal opinion that you are mistaken and merely being nostalgic for things you can't ever experience again.
No ... EPCOT wouldn't be better if those attractions were still being operated in current form. Not at all.
Now ... if the attractions that replaced them had attempted to shoot for the same scope and breath of the originals whether updated versions or totally new concepts then I think the place would be much better than it is today.
You are right about that. However, society has changed within that time, too. You can't say that all of the changes to Epcot are (1) bad, and (2) completely because of a lack of vision on the part of the designers and operator. For example, thrill rides came about because Guests wanted them. (Obviously if no one wanted them, there wouldn't be two-hour waits for Soarin andf Test Track.)
Well ... I agree ... it's not a simple situation. Guests have always enjoyed thrill rides ... I don't feel that people in 2009 enjoy thrills more than those in 1989 at all ... and Soarin (which I enjoy a lot) and TT (which I can't stand and feel is the most overrated major attraction in WDW history) really aren't thrill rides in the real sense of the word.
Yes, the sponsorship helped that progression of events occur. However, I personally believe Disney would continue to fund an Epcot attraction without a sponsor if that attraction were pulling in a decent and consistent number of Guests on a daily basis. The Living Seas woud have remained open if people kept streaming through in droves; the same goes for Horizons and Wonders of Life. I don't have attendance figures for these attractions, and I haven't had the means or ability to visit the parks as much as you have. I could very well be wrong. But it seems odd to me that Disney would start chipping away at an attraction that everyone loved and couldn't get enough of. If the only people who were banging down the doors of the closed Sea Cabs were Epcot fans like those here, it meant it was time for a change.
Again ... complicated circumstances, but not really true.
Horizons is often tossed out as an example of an attraction that wasn't popular because there were never lines for it. I don't think I ever waited more than 20 minutes to ride, even on days like NYE ... but that doesn't tell the tale as those attractions were built by WED/WDI as masterpieces of efficiently moving large numbers of people ... as opposed to TT, which even over a decade after debuting, is famous for having huge amounts of down time when the thing is 101.
When sponsors pulled out, in every example, the numbers went down. Disney didn't invest. That made them even staler. That in turn caused fewer visits. ... Then Disney decided it wanted to shutter things like Horizons and WoL ... so they were taken off maps and promo materials ... they often would close for months ... then naturally no one wanted to see them (other than devoted fanbois) when they actually were open.
Much like Disney's 'surveys' (by the way, did I mention Disney laid of 80% of its research department this week?) that were/are designed to get the responses to justify decisions already made by management, when Disney wanted to 'kill' an attraction it was very easy to see the pattern of decisions made to make it look like the wise choice.
The original FW pavilions were very costly to operate ... just the attention all those AAs needed was staggering ...
I am sure there were other concepts on the table for the pavilion; I don't recall saying Nemo was the only concept available. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the details of some of these other concepts.
Much like Space, there were numerous concepts pitched (one even had a Little Mermaid component, although just a show NOT a retheming of the whole building). The one I felt had the most potential involved adding an E-Ticket caliber attraction that would have been similar to Storm Chaser at TDS with a new storyline. One also would have added a thrill ride (both this and the preceeding concept would have expanded the footprint of the building a la Soarin) where you faced off against Posiedon.
Every concept I heard of would have been significantly more ambitious and costly.
They also would have been much truer to the original concept of the Seas.
Why then did Disney allow the Universe of Energy pavilion to sit and grow stale for 14 years while energy technology was changing rapidly? I thought the Disney of the 1980s was an innovative company who wanted to keep things cutting edge? Why then did they not update UoE until 1996? The same goes for Horizons, World of Motion, The Land or any of the original attractions. You can't tell me the Disney of the 1980s had any more a stomach for what Epcot required than it did by the 90s or now. (Disney under Walt did (he ripped up DL's Tomrrowland how many times while he was alive?), but Disney after Epcot actually opened didn't.
That's exactly what I can tell you ... Disney didn't have a stomach for updating EPCOT Center as it should have been once the 90s hit and they started losing sponsors.
Why do you think UoE is still showing a VERY tired 1990s version in 2009?
because they don't have ExxonMobil's money to spend. And with WoL DOA they simply can't shutter it no matter how much they'd like to.
That WAS a bad creative decision, and I have not attempted to defend that attraction at all. If you notice, I've steered far, far away from mentioning it at all. What has happened to that attraction is different I think, because at the end of its original life, I think it was still fairly popular, and a big change wasn't entirely necessary. (I could be wrong about that...no attendance numbers.) Contrast that to say, Horixons, who, in my own personal perception, wasn't doing much business before it closed.
You aren't wrong about Imagination ... and I think I explained how/why Horizons died above.
People are only getting dumber because very few people are motivating them to want anything better. Th desire to learn for the sake of learning is virtually gone; there needs to be some direct reward associated with everything for it to be considered worthwhile. "The powers that be," whoever they may be, have talked down to society as a whole for far too long. Walt DID have it right, and you shouldn't talk down to any particular group of people. There are many, many reasons why we have fallen into the habit of "being sheep" and following. (Not least of these are money and corporate greed.) the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting pooer in more ways than just their finances. I'll leave it at that.
If you mean too many people in our society have decided to accept less from everything from their politicians to employers to entertainment companies, I'd say that's true to an extent ... if I hear one more time someone say about anything 'well, it's not perfect, but it's the best we ...' ... I hate that ... Until the day I draw my last breath I refuse to accept 'good enough' or 'that's our system' or 'if you don't like it, move to Canada ... or France.'
I firmly believe that Epcot and Disney could play a huge role in the education of people (not just children) around the world. They have a tremendous opportunity (and with their widespread recognition and global selling power, it is almost a social responsibility) to actually help change the world and teach people to learn. It is sad that they've chosen to just empty the world's wallets in the short term rather than make an investment in the world's future that will pay a dividend far more valuable than any you can find on the stock market (even without a recession).
If I've come off as a Disney apologist, I ...well...apologize. (
) As far as Nemo in the Living Seas goes, I don't see a huge problem with it, because I do think it facilitates learning. I've said it before elsewhere, and I'll say it again here, I think you learn best when you don't realize you're learning. Nemo gets people through the door, and there are many opportunities for learning (planned by Disney through its design and unplanned just because the world is spontaneous) waiting for every single person inside that pavilion. Whether or not guests choose to learning anything is up to them. That is the way it is, now and back in 1982, in Epcot and across the world. If people don't want to learn, they won't. If they don't want to learn, Nemo (and The Three Cabelleros and Martin Short and Ellen Degeneres and Timon and Pumbaa and...), is there to entertain them.
I don't think anyone who entered the Living Seas in its first decade did so because they were out to learn about the oceans per se ... they entered because Disney was going to get them to suspend their disbelief and travel to a 21st century sea base on the bottom of the ocean floor ... and show what might be possible in the near future.
The original EC was just as much about entertaining before educating as today's Epcot ... it just wasn't done in a LCD, WalMarted way.
You don't need 'toons to make people interested in an attraction. Look at many of Disney's all-time best attractions from AA to HM to KS to PoC to ToT to SW to BTMRR to SSE etc ...it's just the simplest way to sell an attraction these days (from selling it to WDI powers to Jay Rasulo to P&R execs to the public).
The future is created in the present (aka. "The future world is born today"). Anything about the future is inherently about the present and what we are doing today. Epcot can contain a vision for the future, of course, but it is driven by what is occuring in the world today. (Waiting for the future to come to you is pointess; it will always ellude you.)
And how can you say Epcot is ONLY about the future? What is World Showcase for then?
From a TDO perspective in 2009: Food and Beverage and Merchandise revenues largely.
