Great watch: The Senseless Death of EPCOT

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
I answered some of that in the post you quoted. You don't have to buy into contemporary audiences enjoying it because they stayed away in droves. When Epcot was built with the mission to introduce new technology to the masses that job was taken over by the internet and frankly there was nothing that Disney could offer that they couldn't get for free in their homes.

I don't remember Eisner being all that into IP's unless you count the items that Disney themselves were creating which is the kind of thing that Walt built DL on. WoM is gone because GM wanted it changed and they were paying the bills. Imagination changed because Kodak wanted it changed. Horizons had lost the interest of the majority and Disney, not wanting to have another CoP on their hands took the opportunity to change it when HP made them an offer they didn't want to refuse. I believe that SSE is still there because the imagineers have been unable to imagine what could fit in the building. Pirates is in a different park with a different identity and cannot really be used as a comparative item.
Communicore & Innoventions was, ‘not’ the entirety of the park, nor Future World. Keep in mind also, that Horizons was about how our ‘envisioning’ of the future had changed over time aswell as depending on the ecosystem. Just as Spaceship Earth shows the evolution of communication through various cultures’ contributions & time, as did World of Motion through how transportation changed over time. It wasn’t a “this will be tomorrow” piece. It’s showing the topics and things that are helping ‘shape’ our future. That’s the core thing people seem to miss/misinterpret.
Future World was ‘not’ the same as Tomorrowland. Future World was really.. Real World Topics that continue/always help ‘Shape’ Our World’s Better Future. It’s not a showcase of predictions of what the future in & itself will/would be…
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Communicore was, not the entirety of the park. Keep in mind also, that Horizons was about how our ‘envisioning’ of the future had changed over time aswell as depending on the ecosystem. It wasn’t a “this will be tomorrow piece”. It’s showing the topics and things that are helping ‘shape’ our future. That’s the core thing people seem to miss/misinterpret.
Future World was ‘not’ the same as Tomorrowland. Future World was really.. Real World Topics that help ‘Shape’ Our World’s Future. It’s not predictions of what the future in & itself will/would be…
It was a this is today into tomorrow morning technology park. But, it was possible to keep up in the early 80's but after that technology took off like a shot and there wasn't anyway that Disney could keep up.
 

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
Communicore/Innoventions was a this is today into tomorrow morning technology pavilion/exhibition space. But, it was possible to keep up in the early 80's but after that technology took off like a shot and there wasn't anyway that Disney could keep up.
Fixed that for ya. Think about the original Journey Into Imagination or Spaceship Earth and tell me if that was all about showcasing/predicting tomorrow’s technology... that’s what I thought.
 
Last edited:

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
While yes, you could somehow make the argument that ImageWorks & the hands-on ‘post-shows’ of each pavilion did to a certain degree.. the rides & shows themselves however did not….
Living with the Land, Living Seas, Kitchen Kabaret & Cranium Command also come to mind. Was that about “Today to Tomorrow?”… no.
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Fixed that for ya. Think about the original Journey Into Imagination or Spaceship Earth and tell me if that was all about what tomorrow’s technology is bringing... that’s what I thought.
I was referring to Epcot's FutureWorld generally and those were part of FutureWorld. Horizon was indeed about the future and most of it still hasn't happened yet. Communicore still relied on private business to supply the technology and by the end of the 80's the internet was a much cheaper way of getting their product seen.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
They were all about edutainment and that is what was rejected overall. It was the new stuff that brought people back into the park. Previous to that SSE was once again a walk on and that didn't really change at all.
 

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
I believe that SSE is still there because the imagineers have been unable to imagine what could fit in the building.
During the Eisner era there was a concept for “Time Rovers” - they patented the name and everything. If I remember the story right, spaceship earth can’t structurally work with the forces of a high-speed attraction.

Basically it would have been Rocket Rods.
 

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
I was referring to Epcot's FutureWorld generally and those were part of FutureWorld. Horizon was indeed about the future and most of it still hasn't happened yet. Communicore still relied on private business to supply the technology and by the end of the 80's the internet was a much cheaper way of getting their product seen.
About “how we envisioned the future/visions of the future”. Wasn’t a showcase of “this will be the future” or real technology of what the future ‘will Infact be. But how our hypothetical fantastical/idealistic visions changed overtime. That’s the difference.
 

Bbeagle

Member
I know Im in the minority but I mostly like whats happening at Epcot
I agree. I think the whole open middle area with the lights and festival area will be great.

I remember disliking those 2 buildings (Innoventions West and East) when I went in the 80s and 90s. They were boring, right out of a science museum. Didn't fit with Disney. They were fine and all, but just not entertaining enough.

The new area sounds MUCH MORE Disney.... if they would just FINISH IT!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

solidyne

Well-Known Member
I agree. I think the whole open middle area with the lights and festival area will be great.

I remember disliking those 2 buildings (Innoventions West and East) when I went in the 80s and 90s. They were boring, right out of a science museum. Didn't fit with Disney. They were fine and all, but just not entertaining enough.

The new area sounds MUCH MORE Disney.... if they would just FINISH IT!!!!!!
/s?
 

Poseidon Quest

Well-Known Member
Wait.. you call it a myth they were outdated... then change the table to say 'well if they were updated...'.

I wouldn't consider chronicling the history of a particular subject out-dated. The attractions would need updating in the sense that Pirates and HM see quality of life improvements and occasional scene changes/improvements/additions. At a fundamental level though, the strong attraction design made these attractions timeless other than those occasional updates. The argument that the Internet made Epcot irrelevant isn't convincing to me. Are people not interested in Pirates because they have Wikipedia at their finger tips? Epcot's attractions were more fantastical than they were overtly educational. Even if aspects of Horizons were unrealistic, impractical or have come to fruition, its largest strength was still inspiration. The Sea Castle may be ridiculously impractical, but it's certainly an extremely attractive idea.

I answered some of that in the post you quoted. You don't have to buy into contemporary audiences enjoying it because they stayed away in droves. When Epcot was built with the mission to introduce new technology to the masses that job was taken over by the internet and frankly there was nothing that Disney could offer that they couldn't get for free in their homes.

I don't remember Eisner being all that into IP's unless you count the items that Disney themselves were creating which is the kind of thing that Walt built DL on. WoM is gone because GM wanted it changed and they were paying the bills. Imagination changed because Kodak wanted it changed. Horizons had lost the interest of the majority and Disney, not wanting to have another CoP on their hands took the opportunity to change it when HP made them an offer they didn't want to refuse. I believe that SSE is still there because the imagineers have been unable to imagine what could fit in the building. Pirates is in a different park with a different identity and cannot really be used as a comparative item.

Is there any proof that people stayed away from Epcot? I know that statistics are hard, if not impossible to find. There have certainly been anecdotes about it being an empty park, but that's certainly ignoring that every attraction was an absolute capacity machine. I don't recall the stats, but I think that if all ride vehicles were filled, that would have been around 20,000 people riding an attraction at any given hour. Take into account that around 30,000 people is considered busy in most Orlando parks today. In addition, that's not counting the various shows around the World Showcase or Future World, as well as the abundance of interactive exhibits throughout Communicore and the various pavilions. Original Epcot could have appeared dead on moderate crowd days (at least by Disney standards of today).

Eisner definitely pushed for IP at Epcot specifically. Journey Into Your Imagination tied into the Imagination Institute, so it was essentially meant as an extension of Honey I Shrunk the Audience. Also, did Kodak really want it changed? I've definitely seen the claim that Disney killed it by rerouting the line, driving down guest visitation in order to present the data to Kodak and have them front the money for the change. The Living Seas being re-conceptualized as a Little Mermaid Attraction and then running with Finding Nemo instead is pretty obvious. Ellen and Bill Nye? While it's certainly true that GM wanted change, so did Eisner, pushing for more thrill rides to make Epcot more relevant to teenagers and young adults and that was the perfect excuse. Last I checked, one of the initial ideas for the pavilion was a slow moving dark ride through a GM manufacturing plant. Test Track seemed to be Eisner's thrilling interpretation of this. Project Gemini reveals Eisner's true vision for the park and getting the corporate sponsors on board was how he planned to do it. They obviously had an influence, but I'm not convinced that they were the driving force behind the changes, other than when Disney decided that they no longer wanted to pay for maintenance costs (hence Horizons).
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I wouldn't consider chronicling the history of a particular subject out-dated.

Unfortunately this equation is more than just the topic or storytelling method. Most of these attractions were very much written around the sponsor’s arc. They relied on show tech that became dull and mundane. They became woefully outdated tech wise and disney of the time would not do anything without sponsor dollars paying for it. So you have all these factors pushing that the attractions need a major overhaul and they needed their sponsor to have motivation to sign up for another long term deal. It’s hard to sell a deal on just “new tvs, new narration and updated costumes” - disney basically has to aim big to land the bigger deals.
It’s hard to sell someone on a big number and say “well you basically get the same thing as before…”

Let’s be honest… if spaceship earth’s show was in a show building off to the side like the WoL pavilion and not inside the park’s most iconic structure where basically nothing else can be done… it probably would not be around any longer either as close to the original as it has been.

The attractions would need updating in the sense that Pirates and HM see quality of life improvements and occasional scene changes/improvements/additions.

Again both those shows have core concepts that put them on an entirely different level. Fantasy topics that have had appeal for decades and be equally understood by all ages, all nationalities, etc. Their subject is timeless, they are set in staging that is historical so it doesn’t age out, and they take guests on adventures. Their biggest competitor is themselves- with repetition.

Highlighting the American nuclear family doesn’t have that same kind of universal hook or appeal. Those attractions also established brands around themselves. They became icons themselves - even as much as the castle.

WoM never had that. Nor anything in WoL or KK.

At a fundamental level though, the strong attraction design made these attractions timeless other than those occasional updates.

Design alone doesn’t float the boat forever. See GMR - a masterpiece of concepts, implementation, showmanship, done to the 9s. Yet… its journey it took people on fell out of favor…. Dragging it down into questioning the attraction’s relevance.

UoE - same thing… a mind blowing experience unlike any other anywhere else… but the script and delivery aged badly.

Today just sitting in a 360 theatre isn’t wow enough to carry the load. It wasn’t a failure of the choices in the attraction design, but rather a consequence of how entertainment has progressed and expectations change.

Bottom line… these attractions were not a PoTC or HM…. And simple refreshes like potc/hm get would not have sustained most of those 80s epcot attractions.

They were dated badly by the 90s. And the speed of progress in society and access to media is a big part of that.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Is there any proof that people stayed away from Epcot? I know that statistics are hard, if not impossible to find. There have certainly been anecdotes about it being an empty park, but that's certainly ignoring that every attraction was an absolute capacity machine. I don't recall the stats, but I think that if all ride vehicles were filled, that would have been around 20,000 people riding an attraction at any given hour. Take into account that around 30,000 people is considered busy in most Orlando parks today. In addition, that's not counting the various shows around the World Showcase or Future World, as well as the abundance of interactive exhibits throughout Communicore and the various pavilions. Original Epcot could have appeared dead on moderate crowd days (at least by Disney standards of today).

Eisner definitely pushed for IP at Epcot specifically. Journey Into Your Imagination tied into the Imagination Institute, so it was essentially meant as an extension of Honey I Shrunk the Audience. Also, did Kodak really want it changed? I've definitely seen the claim that Disney killed it by rerouting the line, driving down guest visitation in order to present the data to Kodak and have them front the money for the change. The Living Seas being re-conceptualized as a Little Mermaid Attraction and then running with Finding Nemo instead is pretty obvious. Ellen and Bill Nye? While it's certainly true that GM wanted change, so did Eisner, pushing for more thrill rides to make Epcot more relevant to teenagers and young adults and that was the perfect excuse. Last I checked, one of the initial ideas for the pavilion was a slow moving dark ride through a GM manufacturing plant. Test Track seemed to be Eisner's thrilling interpretation of this. Project Gemini reveals Eisner's true vision for the park and getting the corporate sponsors on board was how he planned to do it. They obviously had an influence, but I'm not convinced that they were the driving force behind the changes, other than when Disney decided that they no longer wanted to pay for maintenance costs (hence Horizons).
One was what is known as an eye witness. I watched the numbers decline for years. All those beloved attractions went from lengthy lines to what was a walk on. Two, if they had been drawing people in they would still be there, Disney never gets rid of a popular attraction unless they are labor intensive plus there would never had been the need for festivals of food, drink and drunks around the world.

Are you saying that anything that was an original Disney release is an IP and shouldn't be used in a Disney park.? Cinderella castle has got to go. As well as Peter Pan which is also a Disney release, not an original thought. If there was any single reason that they wanted Imagination altered it would have been the high cost of maintenance sponsored by a floundering Kodak Co.

Wanting to make the park more relevant to different generations and times? Shameful! I don't think you realize how ingrained corporate sponsorship was in the Disney business plan at the time. That was modus operandi long before Eisner showed up, that is how EPCOT was financed, built and most of the rest of the Disney parks initially.
 

JustAFan

Well-Known Member
The myth of outdated Epcot
Have you ridden Spaceship Earth in the last 20 years?

I love Spaceship Earth, but it can't honestly continue to talk about "amazing new technology" (exact quote from the descent script). Mobile phones, smartphones, and social media are just a few things that are not mentioned but would have a place in the story of how we communicate.
 

Poseidon Quest

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that anything that was an original Disney release is an IP and shouldn't be used in a Disney park.? Cinderella castle has got to go. As well as Peter Pan which is also a Disney release, not an original thought. If there was any single reason that they wanted Imagination altered it would have been the high cost of maintenance sponsored by a floundering Kodak Co.

Wanting to make the park more relevant to different generations and times? Shameful! I don't think you realize how ingrained corporate sponsorship was in the Disney business plan at the time. That was modus operandi long before Eisner showed up, that is how EPCOT was financed, built and most of the rest of the Disney parks initially.

IP is not an issue as long as its relevant and handled well. Sticking Nemo into Epcot with some half-baked and rushed attraction hasn't helped the park at all. I have no issues with keeping parks relevant, but it needs to be done in a meaningful way. I wouldn't consider spending money on pop culture to be a sensible investment, as many elements of the Eisner era have dated themselves far worse than any claim about Epcot's early attractions.

Have you ridden Spaceship Earth in the last 20 years?

I love Spaceship Earth, but it can't honestly continue to talk about "amazing new technology" (exact quote from the descent script). Mobile phones, smartphones, and social media are just a few things that are not mentioned but would have a place in the story of how we communicate.

Spaceship Earth's last refurb was handled poorly from the start. There's a ton of issues, from the lack of meaningful scenes, to the interactivity of the vehicles being gimmicky, to the dialogue being historically inaccurate and not reflecting the scenes themselves accurately. Perhaps if handled with more care, it could have stayed more relevant, but the fundamental message and design of the attraction isn't inherently flawed or out-dated.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom