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. 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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Could not have said it better myself
"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.
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. (
![Wink ;) ;)]()
) 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.
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?