OvertheHorizon
Well-Known Member
I sincerely hope that as the Disney organization and WDI grapples with what will become of Epcot, that they will put in place a sustainable vision. Most of us who were around when Epcot Center opened have a sense of what was intended for the park. If the focus (for Future World) was edutainment, recent decisions seem to be in the direction of enter-cation. There's nothing wrong with that shift, in my opinion, as long as the end result continues to inspire new generations to the promise of how innovations in technology can help all of us in making a more productive world.
Millions return to enjoy the Magic Kingdom each year, entranced by attractions that have been the hallmark of the park since it opened. Yes, there have been upgrades and plusses to some of those attractions, but we still enjoy Peter Pan's Flight, the Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean, Space Mountain, etc., which in the grand scheme of things haven't changed all that much over four and a half decades. In many respects, those attractions are timeless.
Part of the model for Epcot relied on costly corporate sponsorship. In retrospect, this was not a model that would be sustainable. I can understand Disney moving in the direction of using their IP to build audiences and reap the benefit of the synergy (with movies, TV, video games, etc.) from doing so. But as an eloquent person once observed on these boards, they could have added the Nemo characters to The Seas without relying on retelling the Nemo story. Instead, the characters could have articulated the message of The Living Seas. An aside, I miss the hydrolators.
I still think Corporate America could be a part of the technology/futuristic message of Epcot. Imagine if Innoventions were laid out with dozens of smaller booths showcasing the kind of innovations seen at the annual consumer electronics show in Las Vegas, or in various home shows. Rather than try and fill those spaces (in the old Communicore) with just a couple of major exhibits, there could be a veritable buffet of corporate involvement. At a price tag corporate sponsors might be more willing to pay.
Spaceship Earth and Living With the Land seem to me like two examples of attractions which have changed just enough over the years to keep the public's interest. A design model that enables keeping a core message while updating endings or post ride exhibits seems the way to go. Otherwise, the "life" of a pavilion's "show" is probably limited to no more than 20 years - as Ellen's Energy Adventure so aptly demonstrates.
Norway pavilion's recent expansion is the first development of one of the spaces for a new pavilion since Morocco opened in the late 80s. During the Millennium celebration, Disney added a tent structure to showcase 30 - 40 (can't remember exactly) other countries. Now that space is used for private parties/events.
And to allow a pavilion built to showcase Life and Health to languish for only seasonal activities is a big waste.
Finally, continuing to allow a design worthy of a high-class mausoleum, to mark the entrance to the park speaks volumes as to how there is not yet a clear picture of how to make Epcot relevant for the future.
As much as I loved the original Epcot Center, I know that change is inevitable. If it all returned overnight to the way it was in 1982, even those of us who loved it would find lots of fault - our memories giving it more credit than it might be due.
But I'm an optimist, and I look forward to change that is sustainable.
Millions return to enjoy the Magic Kingdom each year, entranced by attractions that have been the hallmark of the park since it opened. Yes, there have been upgrades and plusses to some of those attractions, but we still enjoy Peter Pan's Flight, the Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean, Space Mountain, etc., which in the grand scheme of things haven't changed all that much over four and a half decades. In many respects, those attractions are timeless.
Part of the model for Epcot relied on costly corporate sponsorship. In retrospect, this was not a model that would be sustainable. I can understand Disney moving in the direction of using their IP to build audiences and reap the benefit of the synergy (with movies, TV, video games, etc.) from doing so. But as an eloquent person once observed on these boards, they could have added the Nemo characters to The Seas without relying on retelling the Nemo story. Instead, the characters could have articulated the message of The Living Seas. An aside, I miss the hydrolators.
I still think Corporate America could be a part of the technology/futuristic message of Epcot. Imagine if Innoventions were laid out with dozens of smaller booths showcasing the kind of innovations seen at the annual consumer electronics show in Las Vegas, or in various home shows. Rather than try and fill those spaces (in the old Communicore) with just a couple of major exhibits, there could be a veritable buffet of corporate involvement. At a price tag corporate sponsors might be more willing to pay.
Spaceship Earth and Living With the Land seem to me like two examples of attractions which have changed just enough over the years to keep the public's interest. A design model that enables keeping a core message while updating endings or post ride exhibits seems the way to go. Otherwise, the "life" of a pavilion's "show" is probably limited to no more than 20 years - as Ellen's Energy Adventure so aptly demonstrates.
Norway pavilion's recent expansion is the first development of one of the spaces for a new pavilion since Morocco opened in the late 80s. During the Millennium celebration, Disney added a tent structure to showcase 30 - 40 (can't remember exactly) other countries. Now that space is used for private parties/events.
And to allow a pavilion built to showcase Life and Health to languish for only seasonal activities is a big waste.
Finally, continuing to allow a design worthy of a high-class mausoleum, to mark the entrance to the park speaks volumes as to how there is not yet a clear picture of how to make Epcot relevant for the future.
As much as I loved the original Epcot Center, I know that change is inevitable. If it all returned overnight to the way it was in 1982, even those of us who loved it would find lots of fault - our memories giving it more credit than it might be due.
But I'm an optimist, and I look forward to change that is sustainable.
