jt04
Well-Known Member
Point is folks should be wary of what passes for consensus on these forums.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Iger mentions plans for EPCOT
- Thread starter Progress.City
- Start date
Point is folks should be wary of what passes for consensus on these forums.
And still do. PI was costing the company money, not DTD.
So they turned that into a 3rd party mall too.
michmousefan
Well-Known Member
I've said it before, but they should try a partnership with TED. Find a way to showcase some of the more innovative short TED Talks and create a small theater to show them in. Would be a fine fit for Communicore (let the other half of the area be Innoventions). They could put in a new "talk" two, three times a year if they wanted to. And that's a pretty easy fix for an area that doesn't appear to have any direction right now. I just don't think the current Epcot management has much of a vision for the property past getting the Frozen stuff and Soarin open.
And whatever comes from you....
Last edited:
Brad Bishop
Well-Known Member
Yes, more DVC bungalows like the Poly...
Oh, that's too bad. I could see it if they were building more lodge-like rooms but I don't think "lodge" and then then "bungalows out on the water". It works for Poly but doesn't make a whole lot of sense for Wilderness Lodge.
hpyhnt 1000
Well-Known Member
To be fair I don't think these are over the water. More like lakeside cabins.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
But why the heck would they do that when anyone can just flip over in the comfort of their own home and watch any Ted talk any time on YouTube?
Last edited:
michmousefan
Well-Known Member
Good point, but they could create some "exclusive" talks that are exclusive to Epcot or perhaps debut there before going online. There would have to be some reason why a few of the talks would get "premiere" status at Epcot.
Considering how much it cost to develop for the DL attraction it borrowed from, it really isn't cheap.
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
And it could function as a venue for live ones.
Cheap compared what it should have cost for a real upgrade then. Don't forget the dark ride segments were split between Orlando, Anaheim and Paris.
The DL projection experiments suffered all sorts of setbacks, some of them avoidable.
HMF
Well-Known Member
At least Seabase Alpha 1986 is still salvageable.
I just read that Comcast just announced that they have bought Dreamworks animation, which I suppose they will merge into Universal-NBC.
michmousefan
Well-Known Member
Here's a short video that illustrates the potential of what a "synchronized drone" show (like is supposedly in development for Epcot) could look like.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/1/11554648/drone-ballet-fuji-japan-sky-magic
I only wish the main camera was stationary; it's a bit difficult to see how things appear consistently from the perspective of an audience member.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/1/11554648/drone-ballet-fuji-japan-sky-magic
I only wish the main camera was stationary; it's a bit difficult to see how things appear consistently from the perspective of an audience member.
Soarin' Over Pgh
Well-Known Member
Good luck with that. For the record, I agree, but it would be a HARD look at Epcot to find value in sponsorship. Especially since everything needs updated- the sponsor is easily staring down the barrel of a multimillion dollar gun.
If Disney can't see the value in sponsoring it's own park, rides, etc. why on earth would anyone else?
Granted, the ultimate lineup of sponsors would read something like Google, Elon Musk, and (insert car company of cleanest running eco-friendly vehicle here; I'm obviously not a car person). Even still, can the idea of "Future world" really be sustainable?
Maybe it is time for a theme change.
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Being revenue neutral or even showing a profit while still providing entertainment to guests is what matters. Something that should be replicated across more locations in spite of some peoples' adherence to perpetuating nostalgia at the detriment of profitability.
The whole basis of sponsorship is indeed outdated now. Companies who needed to advertise can now reach their audience on tv, a webpage, or before you dismiss that YouTube commercial after 5 seconds.
The original roster of sponsors mainly came from companies who already had business ties with Disney or a vested interest in their installed infrastructure. IIRC only Kraft were newcomers. Nowerdays the multi million dollar Disney should, could and can afford to pay. Given it is the guest who is actually paying.
As for the concept of "Future World" - it is as relevant today as always. Seas and Life were set in the near future. We still don't inject humans into bodies nor have a viable seabase. Those topics are still of the future, the execution would just need a cosmetic overhaul.
For the rest, Earth, Energy, Horizons and Motion had at least half their rides based in the past. Not the future. The future segments of each are still far in the future even today. Again sometimes cosmetically questionable but nowhere needing a full scale update every five years.
Imagaination was future whimsy and timeless. New projections, new animatronics and lighting and it could have been as good as ever. Which ironically is considered normal upgrading for any pavilion in any park. The Land was mostly then, as it is now, future present. This is the one pavilion updated decor wise once a decade - far less than an office block or hotel room - and still holds its own.
The future of Futureworld came from the technology used, the building architecture and decor, the cohesive theming. And mostly what was built in the 80s still holds its own today. Or it could if invested in.
The original roster of sponsors mainly came from companies who already had business ties with Disney or a vested interest in their installed infrastructure. IIRC only Kraft were newcomers. Nowerdays the multi million dollar Disney should, could and can afford to pay. Given it is the guest who is actually paying.
As for the concept of "Future World" - it is as relevant today as always. Seas and Life were set in the near future. We still don't inject humans into bodies nor have a viable seabase. Those topics are still of the future, the execution would just need a cosmetic overhaul.
For the rest, Earth, Energy, Horizons and Motion had at least half their rides based in the past. Not the future. The future segments of each are still far in the future even today. Again sometimes cosmetically questionable but nowhere needing a full scale update every five years.
Imagaination was future whimsy and timeless. New projections, new animatronics and lighting and it could have been as good as ever. Which ironically is considered normal upgrading for any pavilion in any park. The Land was mostly then, as it is now, future present. This is the one pavilion updated decor wise once a decade - far less than an office block or hotel room - and still holds its own.
The future of Futureworld came from the technology used, the building architecture and decor, the cohesive theming. And mostly what was built in the 80s still holds its own today. Or it could if invested in.
Last edited:
yellowrocket
Active Member
The Disney Institute was sort of TED before the talks became popular. It's unfortunate that Mrs. Eisner was so far ahead of her time.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
The Disney Institute was sort of TED before the talks became popular. It's unfortunate that Mrs. Eisner was so far ahead of her time.
The Disney Institute was AMAZING.