Iger mentions plans for EPCOT

jt04

Well-Known Member
I know what you mean, the EAC scene especially is one of the most elaborate and effective effects Disney has ever pulled off.

If that is the effect where they project the fish into the main tank, yeah that is still amazing. I had not read any spoilers about it so that was a complete surprise.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
I had to go to Google Earth to look. I can't tell if they mowed them down for the view or if they mowed them down to build another DVC.

They did it to both sides so I'm guessing more rooms/DVC:

View attachment 139998

Still, the whole point of the Wilderness Lodge is to literally feel like you're in a lodge in the wilderness and that's kind of lost when you take the wilderness part away.

Yes, more DVC bungalows like the Poly...

7ts68AN.jpg
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
I was talking about the part where they project a Finding Nemo DVD on a wall for thirty seconds, but that scene also makes me cry every time.

A blurry projected DVD scene, at that!

I don't know if it's an intentional video effect as part of the attempt to make you feel like you are moving, but I have to look away during that sequence because it's so blurry and it's made me queasy before.
 

yeti

Well-Known Member
I don't know if it's an intentional video effect as part of the attempt to make you feel like you are moving, but I have to look away during that sequence because it's so blurry and it's made me queasy before.

I heard they were thinking about a Green Team: Less Intense Finding Nemo to avert nausea with enhanced projectors and the removal of the Lopez song at the end of it.
 

wdrive

Well-Known Member
A blurry projected DVD scene, at that!

I don't know if it's an intentional video effect as part of the attempt to make you feel like you are moving, but I have to look away during that sequence because it's so blurry and it's made me queasy before.

I've been stopped in there for around 10 minutes before, it was awful I needed a sit down after I got off.
 

jhendrix

Well-Known Member
I've been thinking about this for a little while, ever since I've heard of people saying the business model for Epcot has failed. Put aside imagining truly new futuristic ip-friendly rides for a moment, because there's something deeper in Epcot's model that needs correction first, especially in this decade.

Sponsors. Disney likes to get the big sponsors: GM, Nestle, HP, Siemens, Coca Cola, etc. And why not? They can pay the big bucks. Disney will make money directly off of the attractions in addition to drawing people into the park. Sponsorship of any pavilion will shoehorn that company's product into the ride or show, making the attraction, for all the creative storytelling, still feel like a commercial.

But sponsors are needed for projects as large as the attractions that go into Epcot. Telling original, futuristic stories takes more research and development that re-telling an animated film, since you have to...research. But are the corporate sponsors of Epcot really the corporations doing the innovating now, or are they there to simply make people feel good about their company because of the Disney stamp of approval?

My suggestion: Get companies who are innovating right now. Get start-up companies to sponsor a fraction of a pavilion. Let Disney, through Epcot, tell their story. No one knows what a company is or what they are trying to do? Get them over to Epcot. Sure the turnover rate may be higher for these start-up companies since every new business is a risk. But drop the price point for sponsorship; bring in 2 to 3x as many start-ups as established companies to balance things out.

Showcase the future by bringing in new companies who want to help with the future, companies or non-profits who are actually doing things that Walt Disney had envisioned with EPCOT. For instance, bring in Strong Towns to help tell the story of Epcot's original Horizons, tell the story of communities. Only, instead of outlandish proposals like a city in space or a city under the sea, tell the story of time-tested concepts of placemaking, making buildings fit in with their surroundings; making cities walkable; using public transportation; making cities sustainable. Using concepts and tying them back to history, rather than futuristic projections will allow attractions to not get so dated as has been the problem in the past. I use this as an example, because I could see this particular attraction even having an Animatronic of Walt Disney himself explaining EPCOT. Some of his ideas for the actual Community were founded on time-tested concepts of place-making and building communities. Something like this could easily fit in Universe of Energy, as it deals with creating a sustainable world. Fixing the core problem, not finding solutions because we waste too much electricity and resources on poorly designed cities (That's a rant for another time).

Maybe Epcot should become a hub of new ideas. Use the Internet to tell Epcot's story outside of the park; rather than let the Internet destroy Epcot's unique place. Have Epcot become, in addition to a theme park, an Experimental Prototype Digital Community of Tomorrow. Become a foundation that will inspire, connect, and finally, be an place for creating and doing.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
But sponsors are needed for projects as large as the attractions that go into Epcot.

No, no they are not. The Walt Disney Company is not a charitable organization that needs help. They are perfectly capable of paying for their own attractions.

The idea that is outdated is that of sponsoring theme park attractions - thirty five years ago, it was attractive to be a part of this new "Epcot Center" project. Companies did it because the corporate environment was very different than today, and it offered them a certain amount of cache to be involved with the project due to the novelty of the whole thing. For some, it was about potential advertising - but for others, it simply was seen as a prestige point (given that many original Epcot sponsors didn't even sell directly to consumers).

Today, the reality is very few folks are going to line up to pretty much donate money to Disney, since now it's quite obvious that it's only for the purpose of allowing them to go ahead and charge $100+ a head to guests.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
That is what people used to say about DTD.

I know these days it's difficult to tell the difference, but DTD is a shopping mall. Epcot is a theme park.

Getting people to bring their shops is far different from Disney putting it's hand out and asking for donations for the privilege of putting a name on an attraction that Disney is charging $100/head to experience.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom