EPCOT Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[UNCgolf]

I don't agree - just because they aren't pushing model YZ-2031 does not mean they aren't product marketing when they are pushing the idea you need an dishwasher to an audience who still considering such things a luxury that no one needs to spend on. It's a difference in how you market products of new spaces vs commoditized spaces. It's still product marketing and just as much product hawking.. just about the product space/need rather than trying to push model X. They are pitching the product's value rather than listing models/prices. You can call it more subtle - but it's not as overt as say, product placement.. it's flat out trying to sell the world that these appliances are great and you need these in your life.

Contrast that with the idea of corporate marketing which is about establishing a image, feeling or reputation about your company and or industry. UoE was more of that... just like when you see ad campaigns today about who is pushing for zero emissions or hiring vets in expensive TV slots. That is corporate marketing trying to build a perception/association between ideals or things perceived as good and the company. It's about establishing/building a image you want people to associate with your name. UoE was about shaping public perception of what you do and it's value. Kodak was pushing the idea of essential and premium. WoM push the pitch of leader and innovators. Bell's was pushing the value to society and your life angle.

The companies were being sold on 10yr sponsorship deals... with attractions intended to run as-is during that time. You wouldn't try to do specific model stuff as it would require constant refresh.

You say 'background noise' - but I would say it's bias, positioning, and purpose was all still clear as day. The 'history lessons' being taught were with clear objectives and end-game.. not independent and objective. Sure you can say 'there wasn't product pushing' - but when the whole purpose and story of the thing is to push a corporate outcome... yeah I don't subscribe to it being 'background' or even subtle.

Imagination and The Land were the only ones that really detached the show portion very well from the corporate push. And the The Land more so because they were pushing the science side and food production and less about food processing/consumption. SSE I'd rank third mainly because they stuck so much to the idea of human dev and less about building to a certain outcome.

I don't disagree with any of this. My point is that the pavilions (and Carousel of Progress, for that matters) were generally pushing ideas that were applicable to a whole area, not one specific corporation. They were generally interchangeable across those areas (again, WoM excepted since they displayed specific products). It's not that that kind of advertising is ineffective, nor is it really about subtlety -- it's the fact that they weren't really corporate specific for the most part. That's why I think many EPCOT visitors couldn't even tell you what corporation sponsored most of the pavilions (and why I personally would have to look them up).

I personally find the Starbucks locations scattered around WDW as bad or worse than anything that existed at EPCOT (they do more to take me out of the theme park experience), but again, I'm not advocating for a return to corporate sponsorship. I very specifically do not want that.

This whole conversation started about IP vs. corporate sponsorship for attractions, and the only truly important point for me is that anything that leads to a great attraction is fine. Everything else is academic -- I understand people disliking the corporate sponsorships at EPCOT (and again, I am not advocating for their return), but the attractions there were among the best Disney has ever built.

I think that is a very difficult statement to get behind. It's very easy to fall into the trap of only looking at the successes that stand out decades later because they are the survivors.. the creme of the crop.

Certainly Disney has a history of creating new original content, even for the theme parks... but survivors like pirates doesn't necessarily mean that's the formula that should be used today as gospel. We see this in other industries as well...

This is why I said historically. Most of the best attractions in WDW history didn't involve IP -- if I was listing the 20 best attractions that ever existed at WDW, I think maybe a third would have IP (and one of them would be Tower of Terror, where the IP is more of a complement than a necessity).

There's nothing stopping them from building great IP attractions going forward (and they have built some), but I think there are specific reasons it's easier to build something that doesn't rely on an IP -- the biggest being creative freedom. When using an IP, there are inherent constraints to what you can do due to the nature of the IP.

 

[UNCgolf]

Thanks for stating your opinion, but it is one that baffles me. I'd rather have a pre-show where a holographic Rey tells me about the mission than a corporate slide show telling me about United Technologies. I'd rather hear that Lt. Beck is A.O.K than ride up a hydrolator whose narration reminds me again of the wonderful work of United Technologies.

Why do you think I'm suggesting otherwise? This is another strawman you've set up.

All that matters is the quality of the experience. If the holographic Rey comes before a bad attraction, I'd prefer the United Technlogies hydrolator if it's great. If the holographic Rey comes before a great attraction, and the hydrolator is bad, then I'd prefer the holographic Rey.

I personally prefer science/history, so I have a bias there (and that's at least part of the reason EPCOT was my favorite park ever) and all things being equal I'd likely prefer the science/history attraction, but no corporate sponsorship is necessary for that. Disney could have built everything at EPCOT without corporate sponsorship, and there's no reason they couldn't have overhauled EPCOT into other great science/history based attractions that didn't need IP.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Spaceship Earth would be in my top 10 (easily), but I agree with everything else.

As a fan of classic EPCOT, I'm obviously a fan of SSE, but at this point it's not in my top 10. It's in the 11-20 range.

 

[UNCgolf]

When you talk about waits as seen as across the board vs what a typical wait is.. yes... but alot of that has to do with the general rise in attendance, and of course the other capacity points. I don't think it reflects anything on people's perceptions on waits - it's more an outcome of 'what visiting WDW means now' and that Disney pull still is great enough to offset the cons people see about the waits.

This is the only place where we disagree, but it's honestly semantics at this point, because I agree completely with your final sentence. It's just that to me that is evidence that people's perception of acceptable waits has changed and to you it isn't.

 

[UNCgolf]

There's are variations of a rather frightening quote that boils down to "give me the child and I'll deliver you the man." Basically saying that what you teach the child sticks. Selling a specific item pales before selling the brand. The children of EPCOT Center likely grew up thinking much higher of Exxon, Bell/At&T, Kraft, United Technologies, GM, Kodak, Met Life, etc than they would have otherwise and that's a great sale considering they were also the one's paying.

This is our major disagreement, I think, but we have absolutely no way of knowing who's right. I think most kids who went to EPCOT paid absolutely no attention to who sponsored the pavilions and couldn't tell you who they were.

 

[sedati]

Why do you think I'm suggesting otherwise?

All that matters is the quality of the experience. If the holographic Rey comes before a bad attraction, I'd prefer the United Technlogies hydrolator if it's great. If the holographic Rey comes before a great attraction, and the hydrolator is bad, then I'd prefer the holographic Rey.

I personally prefer science/history, so I have a bias there (and that's at least part of the reason EPCOT was my favorite park ever) and all things being equal I'd likely prefer the science/history attraction, but no corporate sponsorship is necessary for that. Disney could have built everything at EPCOT without corporate sponsorship, and there's no reason they couldn't have overhauled EPCOT into other great science/history based attractions that didn't need IP.

We all wish we lived in the Blue Sky phase, none more than Walt.

 

[flynnibus]

There's nothing stopping them from building great IP attractions going forward (and they have built some), but I think there are specific reasons it's easier to build something that doesn't rely on an IP -- the biggest being creative freedom. When using an IP, there are inherent constraints to what you can do due to the nature of the IP.

Just to draw a parallel... The best pinball machines from the 1980s and 1990s as objectively measured today were not licensed titles - they were games where original stories and characters were used. Licensed IP was common by the 90s, and for some lines nearly exclusive... some were good, some were bad... but almost across the board the non-licensed titles still have more survivors seen as smash hits than the non-licensed.

Fans non-stop morn the loss of non-licensed titles in the industry today. They keep pointing back to the past hits and say "see, it works!". Yet, every industry person would tell you that non-licensed IP games today are suicide. Why? Because they actually work with the actual numbers and not just ideals. They know the licensed games sell better. Yes, there are examples where many get crippled by issues like licenser approvals and performer licensing costs (ironically.. Disney is one of those bad actors!) -- but more often then not, the licensed titles outsell the original titles.. even when they are good. The gains and attractive elements of the licensed titles just continue to out perform the dream of another non-IP hit.

The point of the story is - ideals vs people carrying the bag. Consumers speak with their wallets and businesses are smart to listen to them.

We also can't ignore Disney of this century is not the Disney of 1970s. The theme parks do not operate in isolation, and TWDC looks to leverage its assets the best it can. There is alot more synergy forces today then there was when Disney was pumping out cheap live action films and coasting on it's past.

My point is that the pavilions (and Carousel of Progress, for that matters) were generally pushing ideas that were applicable to a whole area, not one specific corporation. They were generally interchangeable across those areas (again, WoM excepted since they displayed specific products)

I think you are confusing the point they pushed their space rather than their name as something other than it was. GM was the biggest car company in the world. Bell Systems was the MONOPOLY of communications systems in the country. Exxon was the #1 Fortune 500 company and the biggest oil company in the world. These names were synomous with the industries they were pushing as saints and saviors. Yes, they weren't so obtuse as simply saying 'EXXON IS THE BESTEST!' - but the point is to walk out feeling that what the energy companies is doing is good.. and by the way.. Thanks Exxon.

I personally find the Starbucks locations scattered around WDW as bad or worse than anything that existed at EPCOT (they do more to take me out of the theme park experience), but again, I'm not advocating for a return to corporate sponsorship. I very specifically do not want that.

I think that is an entirely different discussion - because while Starbucks/etc get IN through paid deals... it's not really the same concept as having sponsors steer your actual attraction offerings. Starbucks coffee or McDonald's fries were not the attractions in the parks - even when put into themed buildings or menus.

 

[flynnibus]

This is the only place where we disagree, but it's honestly semantics at this point, because I agree completely with your final sentence. It's just that to me that is evidence that people's perception of acceptable waits has changed and to you it isn't.

If in 1988 - you didn't have to get a line of 180mins to see an attraction - how can you use that to prove I wouldn't have?

Waits were long then - Waits are long now. Disney pioneered the ways of making waits more tolerable because... they had long waits!

Waits peek out more now and more attractions have long waits because of increased attendance and shrinking capacity. People wait in long lines in both periods - now people just have more carrots in front of them to try to chase to avoid the lines.

In the 80s unless you had a wheelchair or VIP.. everyone was waiting the same. Touring strategies were your only tool. Now, people chase all kinds of carrots and get more upset when it doesn't pay off. It would take a long period before people settled down to just 'this is what it is' because they have such recent memories of scheming around the lines.

 

[UNCgolf]

Just to draw a parallel... The best pinball machines from the 1980s and 1990s as objectively measured today were not licensed titles - they were games where original stories and characters were used. Licensed IP was common by the 90s, and for some lines nearly exclusive... some were good, some were bad... but almost across the board the non-licensed titles still have more survivors seen as smash hits than the non-licensed.

Fans non-stop morn the loss of non-licensed titles in the industry today. They keep pointing back to the past hits and say "see, it works!". Yet, every industry person would tell you that non-licensed IP games today are suicide. Why? Because they actually work with the actual numbers and not just ideals. They know the licensed games sell better. Yes, there are examples where many get crippled by issues like licenser approvals and performer licensing costs (ironically.. Disney is one of those bad actors!) -- but more often then not, the licensed titles outsell the original titles.. even when they are good. The gains and attractive elements of the licensed titles just continue to out perform the dream of another non-IP hit.

The point of the story is - ideals vs people carrying the bag. Consumers speak with their wallets and businesses are smart to listen to them.

We also can't ignore Disney of this century is not the Disney of 1970s. The theme parks do not operate in isolation, and TWDC looks to leverage its assets the best it can. There is alot more synergy forces today then there was when Disney was pumping out cheap live action films and coasting on it's past.

I completely understand this point, and have made the same argument regarding other things.

I'm not sure it's really relevant to the discussion, though (especially the last paragraph). We already know Disney has an IP mandate and that they aren't going to build non-IP attractions, and I think most people understand the business reasons for that mandate. I mentioned Frozen Ever After earlier, but it's an obvious example -- that is a mediocre ride that gets long waits solely due to the presence of the Frozen IP (well, also because it has a very low capacity, but it's not like Maelstrom had 60+ minute waits).

To me, this was always a hypothetical discussion about what would get us the best possible attractions, not about what Disney actually is going to do or even what is best for their business. With that said, I don't think the latter is clear-cut -- building IP attractions certainly helps, but IP alone only does so much if the underlying attraction is actually bad (Little Mermaid is often close to a walk-on even at busy times -- it's helped by a high capacity, but Disney didn't build the queue they built for it to have such short waits). They need some IP leverage as part of the draw for new visitors, but they also need great attractions to keep people coming back. It may not be the best for their business to dismiss out of hand any exceptional attraction concepts solely because they do not leverage Disney IP. It also may eventually be counterproductive to essentially merge all four parks into the same concept, although I think it's less likely that will be an issue.

EDIT: Also, I think attractions in a theme park are a bit different than individual products. If there was a pinball hall where someone paid $25 admission and had free play for everything, it would probably be helpful to have some of the really interesting non-licensed games in addition to the licensed ones. It's a different calculus when you're not trying to sell them individually; you want to diversify your offerings to appeal to a wider range of people. Although since Disney is now selling individual attractions in addition to the admission price, maybe not...

 

[pdude81]

This is our major disagreement, I think, but we have absolutely no way of knowing who's right. I think most kids who went to EPCOT paid absolutely no attention to who sponsored the pavilions and couldn't tell you who they were.

As a child of Epcot I agree that I had no idea who sponsored those pavilions. But that doesn't mean that I didn't take in the message and let is shape my thinking. The most effective forms of advertising make you think it's your idea to buy their products.

Unfortunately this is so long ago that I can't remember anything other than the best parts of certain attractions.

 

[Rich Brownn]

The exit area had a huge logo and several enormous tiger murals that had nothing to do with the show itself and everything to do with the corporate mascot. And then there's the post show:
View attachment 606777
Yes it was across the path in Communicore (bad design or pure afterthought, I'm sure Martin could elaborate)but they directed you there as you exited.

The exit signs weren't there for a while. And while it did focus on fossil fuels it also discussed solar (which, in fact, led off the second film ...) as well as natural gas, nuclear, and geothermal fuels.

 

[Rich Brownn]

This is our major disagreement, I think, but we have absolutely no way of knowing who's right. I think most kids who went to EPCOT paid absolutely no attention to who sponsored the pavilions and couldn't tell you who they were.

No one I knew ever said "Let's go the Exxon pavillion." They were mostly like to say "The Energy ride" or "The dinosaur ride" Same with Imagination, Horizons, Land and the Seas. Probably the only one that people knew was World of Motion -- people sometimes did call it the GM ride. I'd probably have done a spit take is some asked "Where's The United Technology pavilion?" LOL

 

[UNCgolf]

As a child of Epcot I agree that I had no idea who sponsored those pavilions. But that doesn't mean that I didn't take in the message and let is shape my thinking. The most effective forms of advertising make you think it's your idea to buy their products.

Unfortunately this is so long ago that I can't remember anything other than the best parts of certain attractions.

Agreed, but if you have no idea who sponsored the pavilions, you wouldn't even know what products/brand to buy. Especially since several of the pavilions were sponsored by companies that weren't selling consumer products anyways, at least not in a direct sense. But I think most of the original sponsors did not intend those sponsorships to directly sell product; they had other reasons.

It's not going to help Kodak very much if you're inspired to buy a camera and start taking photos but you buy a Polaroid.

 

[sedati]

The exit signs weren't there for a while. And while it did focus on fossil fuels it also discussed solar (which, in fact, led off the second film ...) as well as natural gas, nuclear, and geothermal fuels.

I'm not sure what you're replying to- you said there was hardly anything in the pavilion that was directly tied to Exxon. This is the exit area I was talking about (taken from Martins amazing tribute):

Not exactly subtle. There's a slogan above though I can't make it out- "something ON THE TIGER." They had an ad campaign back in the day asking you to "Put a tiger in your tank." Also, there's "Run with the tiger" from a full-page ad which appeared in the free comic I pulled the panel of Mickey from.
that-time-mickey-mouse-and-goofy-shilled-for-exxon-at-d-1391922492

 

[sedati]

I'm not sure it's really relevant to the discussion, though (especially the last paragraph). We already know Disney has an IP mandate and that they aren't going to build non-IP attractions, and I think most people understand the business reasons for that mandate. I mentioned Frozen Ever After earlier, but it's an obvious example -- that is a mediocre ride that gets long waits solely due to the presence of the Frozen IP (well, also because it has a very low capacity, but it's not like Maelstrom had 60+ minute waits).

But Maelstrom itself was hindered and changed by a corporate wants and needs. None of the EPCOT Center attractions are "pure." Their concepts were all molded and manipulated to fit the interests of those who were sponsoring. Yes, Imagination may have been the one least altered, but look at The Land whose focus was wholly changed.

 

[UNCgolf]

But Maelstrom itself was hindered and changed by a corporate wants and needs. None of the EPCOT Center attractions are "pure." Their concepts were all molded and manipulated to fit the interests of those who were sponsoring. Yes, Imagination may have been the one least altered, but look at The Land whose focus was wholly changed.

Sure, which is why I'm not advocating to bring back a corporate sponsorship model. Disney doesn't need that, and it's a very different world than the late 1970s/early 1980s. They have enough money to build whatever they want without any outside investment. My love for EPCOT is because the attractions/pavilions were fantastic, not because they had corporate sponsors.

I want them to have the freedom to build the best possible attractions without being forced into anything. Corporate sponsorship absolutely affects what they can build just like the IP mandate and is totally unnecessary, but it's no longer part of their model. At the moment, the IP mandate is what's potentially holding the parks back in terms of unique attractions. If they have a great idea for an IP ride, then build it! I have no problem with that. I just don't like that any non-IP idea, no matter how good, is automatically off the table.

 

[Casper Gutman]

This conversation just strikes me as very strange because the original inspiration of EPCOT is so clear - it was a permanent World's Fair, with everything that implied. The sponsorships inescapably follow from that. They were a fundamental element of the entire mid-century ideology that underlay the Fairs and, later, EPCOT - corporate science (very specifically not public science) was going to improve the life of every human (but mostly Americans), ushering in an era of ease, affluence, and international unity. In this sense, the sponsorships were very different from slapping Starbucks all over the place - they weren't just ads, they were components of a larger system of belief. For me personally, this is why Starbucks today seems so much more grating and mercenary then Exxon or GE thirty years ago.

Now, you can reject that ideology. Most, including Disney, have. But then you are rejecting all of EPCOT as originally conceived. EPCOT needs to become something new, with a new fundamental vision. Disney is incapable of producing that vision, which is why we have the shameful mess we have today.

 

[Incomudro]

If in 1988 - you didn't have to get a line of 180mins to see an attraction - how can you use that to prove I wouldn't have?

Waits were long then - Waits are long now. Disney pioneered the ways of making waits more tolerable because... they had long waits!

Waits peek out more now and more attractions have long waits because of increased attendance and shrinking capacity. People wait in long lines in both periods - now people just have more carrots in front of them to try to chase to avoid the lines.

In the 80s unless you had a wheelchair or VIP.. everyone was waiting the same. Touring strategies were your only tool. Now, people chase all kinds of carrots and get more upset when it doesn't pay off. It would take a long period before people settled down to just 'this is what it is' because they have such recent memories of scheming around the lines.

Some of my earliest memories of WDW were hour long waits at Jungle Cruise, PotC, and 20 Thousand Leagues Under the Sea.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I paid to go to Disney, so I expect to see Disney product.

Did you expect Mickey Mouse to be in Frozen? Woody and Buzz to be in Soul?

 

[lazyboy97o]

This conversation just strikes me as very strange because the original inspiration of EPCOT is so clear - it was a permanent World's Fair, with everything that implied. The sponsorships inescapably follow from that. They were a fundamental element of the entire mid-century ideology that underlay the Fairs and, later, EPCOT - corporate science (very specifically not public science) was going to improve the life of every human (but mostly Americans), ushering in an era of ease, affluence, and international unity. In this sense, the sponsorships were very different from slapping Starbucks all over the place - they weren't just ads, they were components of a larger system of belief. For me personally, this is why Starbucks today seems so much more grating and mercenary then Exxon or GE thirty years ago.

Now, you can reject that ideology. Most, including Disney, have. But then you are rejecting all of EPCOT as originally conceived. EPCOT needs to become something new, with a new fundamental vision. Disney is incapable of producing that vision, which is why we have the shameful mess we have today.

I wonder how many are aware that there is a World’s Fair open right now?