Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Epcot's reputation for being a place you mainly go to drink and don't bother taking kids to is very much a real thing thought by some in the general public.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Epcot's reputation for being a place you mainly go to drink and don't bother taking kids to is very much a real thing thought by some in the general public.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
And, to build on earlier points, it definitely had a rep of “boring for kids” from the early days that it hasn’t lived down among many. Yes, I know people here will argue that it was undeserved but nonetheless it has been out there.
I will say that as a child I did kinda hate being dragged from shop to shop in World Showcase (my mom in particular loved to check out all the wares) and all I wanted to do was go back and ride Maelstrom repeatedly. I was - and still am - of the opinion that WS needs more rides to enhance the pavilions with major offerings.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I'd buy that EPCOT was boring for toddlers (except Imagination and possibly the Living Seas) but I don't think that was true for at least a significant percentage of older kids -- especially not Future World.
World Showcase is definitely more arguable. I liked it as a kid, but Future World was what made me love Disney World and I probably could have spent the whole day solely there.
And yes, every single pavilion should have an attraction of some kind. It's crazy that they've replaced so many rides there without bothering to add any to the pavilions until last year.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
It was EPCOT that made me fall in love with Disney. I was around 5 at the time. When EPCOT declined into ruin a decade or so later, my affection switched to MGM. Magic Kingdom never really figured into it that much.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
I was torn between MK and EPCOT growing up. EPCOT (Center) had the edge, though. And it stayed with me as I got older, even as the park languished. It was the diversity between the parks. That they both represented WDW - but felt very different in tone and theme. Yet, everything still felt "Disney" in execution. I actually know a lot of people who said they didn't think they liked it as kids, but it quickly became their favorite park as an older teen and into adulthood.
It would be nice if some of those kids (now adults) were still represented in the ranks of Disney creative. Maybe Beacons of Magic suggests there is a little hope for that. Find ways to make these cool toys and IPs work within the story of the park that inspired a LOT of people - though we don't like to admit that.
Mickeynerd17
Well-Known Member
This except I never switched to HWS because of all the construction. I still very much enjoy the current epcot but it's, well, different.
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
To pay for the Committee of committees that Disney uses to design and build everything they do.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
When I started going in the 1990s, my family all preferred EPCOT over MK and MGM. As many have said, the big thing that is draining away from the parks is their distinctiveness from one another which was always a big part of the appeal. They are leaning into making Epcot aesthetically different from the other parks, but attraction wise it seems they're trying to push it and all the other parks toward being a collection of movie-based attractions behind different themed facades.
That said, I am a bit mixed on what direction EPCOT should have taken. I suspect that WoM would not have aged well even with updates, for example, and a greater mix of different types of attractions in Future World probably was needed. Some things they did should have made sense, particularly Test Track and Mission: Space which added some thrills, were ambitious attractions, and focussed on the kinds of themes that should have fit well into the park. While neither are bad attractions, they ended up as kind of mediocre and never really became popular enough to boost the park. If anything, it was only with Soarin' that they finally got Epcot a WDW 'must see' attraction (for many guests, anyway). Not sure where the blame lies for this, as the concepts make sense, at least to me.
Elsewhere, what they chose to keep, refurbish, and close is at times baffling. Beyond the big tragedy of Journey Into Imagination, it surprises me that Wonders of Life was shut down so promptly. It was a flexible, interactive space based on a theme of health and fitness that is still one of our main obsessions as a society. It just feels no-one really thought the implications of these kinds of decisions for the park beyond the immediate concerns of sponsorships, etc.
I'm sure both Guardians and Play! will be popular. Still, it is part of the phenomenon that makes it hard for me to get enthused about Epic Universe. That seems a perfect crystallisation of what all the parks in Orlando are becoming: movie-based lands and attractions gathered together under random, almost meaningless names.
Last edited:
Patcheslee
Well-Known Member
Epcot is the one park DD13 requests any time we take vacations in Florida. Disney vacations out of 10 days, at least 3 of them we hopped to Epcot for WS alone. Her favorite is learning foreign language so having so many was great for her. She did mention they should put a station for sign language, another interest of hers.
CinematicFusion
Well-Known Member
Agree, it's a ride if you are extremely hot and there is zero line.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
I am extremely hot but I don’t see the connection. Only attractive people are allowed onboard? Or do we get to use the Lightning Lane? If so, I’m really upset. I don’t work out this much to wait in Standby.
If you're Chris Pratt Gaurdians hot, yes.
If you're Chris Pratt Parks and Recreation hot, no.
Patcheslee
Well-Known Member
Lightning is hot enough to cause burns, so think of Lightning Lane as a extra jolt of hotness.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
I bet the key will be confidence. I’ll just strut into the Lightning Lane. I doubt anyone will say anything, but if they are like, “sir, are you sure you are eligible for this line?” I’ll respond “obviously” with a
I bet you 60% of the time, it works every time.
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
Walt did know the importance of a thrill ride to balance out a park with Matterhorn Bobsleds.
In 1959 Matterhorn was 80 feet tall and was the tallest steel rollercoaster in the world. It was behind the 100 foot wooden cyclone though.
Test track barely counts as a thrill ride and Mission Space makes too many people sick.
In 1959 Matterhorn was 80 feet tall and was the tallest steel rollercoaster in the world. It was behind the 100 foot wooden cyclone though.
Test track barely counts as a thrill ride and Mission Space makes too many people sick.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
I think adding a thrill attraction, especially that's more family friendly (older kids) is fair - especially given the M:S issue. Balance is always key. It's cost, execution and intrusion on the park itself that's causing the concern.
It was the only steel roller coaster (it was the first.) Every steel coaster made since only exists because of Matterhorn’s success.
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
Matterhorn was the first tubular steel coaster. Not sure I can find the oldest steel roller coaster every made, but Montaña Suiza is the oldest operating steel rollercoaster and opened in 1928. I've actually been to that little park and was super sad the ride wasn't operating the day I was there.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Matterhorn Mountain is the first tubular steel coaster. There were steel coasters that used flat rails.