Iger mentions plans for EPCOT

[HMF]

Plus Dias de los Muertos is already represented in the ride's Small World-esque scene and expanding the ride to get into the holiday as a whole would give it focus.
I still don't mind the Caballeros as much compared to some of the other IP that's been shoved in that even with the chasing Donald plot thread, it's still a travelogue through Mexico and that's leagues better then the Frozen Ever After crap.

Yeah, My opinion on Gran Fiesta Tour tends to fluctuate, On the one hand it is part of the character invasion and dumbing down of Epcot, On the other hand it is based on a property which was heavily based on Mexican Culture so I have more or less a reluctant appreciation of it though they could at least make a passing attempt to actually educate about Mexican history and culture rather than just search for Donald. Frozen on the other hand just does not belong in World Showcase no matter how Disney PR tries to spin it.

 

[ItlngrlBella]

To preface: I ask this question simply because I'm curious. I was born in 1992, so I really can't say I remember many details from before a lot of the changes started to happen. I'm sure I at one point rode WoM, Horizons, Journey into Imagination, etc., but I really only know what I've seen in pictures and videos.

Was the general public able to "buy in" to EPCOT in the 80s and 90s? Were they able to relate to the new characters that were created for the park, without having IPs present? Did people enjoy the "edutainment" found in the original attractions?

I absolutely believe that there are some incredible advancements happening in technology, science, medicine, transportation, etc. that the park should absolutely be focused on. I know that I personally would love to see representation from the companies in these fields, but that's because I have an interest in STEM (& STEAM), and I would love a Innoventions/Communicore tour/show-type experience.

But how do you present those things to the common, modern audience? Would the modern audience "buy in" to new characters (such as a Buzzy or Figment) that they have no previous connection to? What types of experiences could be created that ultimately would 1) entertain and amaze, 2) get them off their phones/tablets for enough time to appreciate the full experience and be immersed in the story and 3) get people into the park gates?

Is it that (unfortunately) the modern audience has to have IPs and/or have an interactive experience to be entertained? I certainly don't want to see EPCOT become another fantasyland (and I certainly think that Frozen in Norway is questionable at best), but is it the worst thing to use IPs THAT FIT to help tell the story?

What do you think? I hope I'm not sparking a debate, it's just something I'm genuinely interested in. Thanks!

I was born in the late 70's and went to Epcot about a year after it opened and was in elementary school. We did MK and then 2 full days at EPCOT. I LOVED it over MK. I felt inspired and had a sense of awe. It sparked my love of the sciences and communications (which I went on to double major in college).

We always spent at least a day and a half there on later trips. Now, it seems like a worn out sad relic... A museum of the past.

I remember the Dream Keeper and Figment, and there were no IPs in the park and it was fine. We actually learned about the culture of countries and loved The Maelstrom... Now it's Elsas boat ride. I'm sure the Norweigans are delighted that she is reigning over their pavilion now.

 

[DisneyDaver]

To preface: I ask this question simply because I'm curious. I was born in 1992, so I really can't say I remember many details from before a lot of the changes started to happen. I'm sure I at one point rode WoM, Horizons, Journey into Imagination, etc., but I really only know what I've seen in pictures and videos.

Was the general public able to "buy in" to EPCOT in the 80s and 90s? Were they able to relate to the new characters that were created for the park, without having IPs present? Did people enjoy the "edutainment" found in the original attractions?

I absolutely believe that there are some incredible advancements happening in technology, science, medicine, transportation, etc. that the park should absolutely be focused on. I know that I personally would love to see representation from the companies in these fields, but that's because I have an interest in STEM (& STEAM), and I would love a Innoventions/Communicore tour/show-type experience.

But how do you present those things to the common, modern audience? Would the modern audience "buy in" to new characters (such as a Buzzy or Figment) that they have no previous connection to? What types of experiences could be created that ultimately would 1) entertain and amaze, 2) get them off their phones/tablets for enough time to appreciate the full experience and be immersed in the story and 3) get people into the park gates?

Is it that (unfortunately) the modern audience has to have IPs and/or have an interactive experience to be entertained? I certainly don't want to see EPCOT become another fantasyland (and I certainly think that Frozen in Norway is questionable at best), but is it the worst thing to use IPs THAT FIT to help tell the story?

What do you think? I hope I'm not sparking a debate, it's just something I'm genuinely interested in. Thanks!

I was born in the early 70's and was at EPCOT the year it opened (plus a couple other times in the 80s). EPCOT was great back then. I was 9 the first time I was there and loved it. I bought into Figment and others, and I believe that if done correctly, the modern audience would buy into new (non-IP) characters. Some of WDWs best attractions (eg POTC, JC, HM, SM, BTMR) were not IP based when created and it could be done again.

 

[BrerJon]

To preface: I ask this question simply because I'm curious. I was born in 1992, so I really can't say I remember many details from before a lot of the changes started to happen. I'm sure I at one point rode WoM, Horizons, Journey into Imagination, etc., but I really only know what I've seen in pictures and videos.

Was the general public able to "buy in" to EPCOT in the 80s and 90s? Were they able to relate to the new characters that were created for the park, without having IPs present? Did people enjoy the "edutainment" found in the original attractions?

Absolutely. Kids loved EPCOT Center. People liked the new characters - Figments flew off the shelves - but they were a balanced part of a bigger diet and didn't dominate, but simply helped to tell the wider stories the park focused on.

You only have to look at present day non-Disney science museums or exploration parks to see they still get crowds even without having 'IP' in, and it was the same for Disney, except the Disney exhibits were on a different level to what everyone else was offering.

You didn't buy your reasonably priced ticket to see cartoon characters, but to experience the tricks, technology and vision of Imagineering at its finest. People raved about EPCOT, and returned year after year, because it was the most unique theme park in the world.

It's hard to understate how good EPCOT Center made a kid feel about the future, and their potential to change the world, but unless you were a toddler in which case looking at the ducks is your kind of fun, one thing it never, ever was, was boring.

With the right creative vision and imagination, EPCOT could once again be great, but that doesn't seem to be a vision shared by the current Imagineers, or the people paying their salaries, so we are stuck with DisneyMall for now, sad as that is.

 

[Mike S]

Can we get North Korea represented in the World Showcase? There will be no food of any kind, cell phones wont have any signal, and every day at noon, they will fire missles into the WS Lagoon

With a Team America E Ticket.

 

[Kman101]

I agree but if we are going to be shoved IP down our throats without say or approval the least one can hope for is that it's a ride that actually works with the country in question to educate on culture and tradition. But how wonderful does a Dia de los muertos attraction sound now that I think about it.. Calavera's, La Catrina, Ofrendas... It could be something truly unique and wonderful if only it were 1980.

Exactly. The rhetoric has become "IP BAD" and everything gets dismissed as forced in (which, so far, it has been, so I get it), but with Coco, it *could* work. And it might not actually be that bad. I don't hate the Caballeros in the ride (although as others have said, it represents a bigger problem with the park), and the animatronics help improve it slightly, but it seems that the new go to is "IP BAD" and that doesn't *always* have to be the case. It just has been so far.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Exactly. The rhetoric has become "IP BAD" and everything gets dismissed as forced in (which, so far, it has been, so I get it), but with Coco, it *could* work. And it might not actually be that bad. I don't hate the Caballeros in the ride (although as others have said, it represents a bigger problem with the park), and the animatronics help improve it slightly, but it seems that the new go to is "IP BAD" and that doesn't *always* have to be the case. It just has been so far.

It is when people trot out the lie that the focus is some other subject when in fact it is the intellectual property. EPCOT Center has strong roots that are far more than whatever is entertaining.

 

[Herbie]

To preface: I ask this question simply because I'm curious. I was born in 1992, so I really can't say I remember many details from before a lot of the changes started to happen. I'm sure I at one point rode WoM, Horizons, Journey into Imagination, etc., but I really only know what I've seen in pictures and videos.

Was the general public able to "buy in" to EPCOT in the 80s and 90s? Were they able to relate to the new characters that were created for the park, without having IPs present? Did people enjoy the "edutainment" found in the original attractions?

I absolutely believe that there are some incredible advancements happening in technology, science, medicine, transportation, etc. that the park should absolutely be focused on. I know that I personally would love to see representation from the companies in these fields, but that's because I have an interest in STEM (& STEAM), and I would love a Innoventions/Communicore tour/show-type experience.

But how do you present those things to the common, modern audience? Would the modern audience "buy in" to new characters (such as a Buzzy or Figment) that they have no previous connection to? What types of experiences could be created that ultimately would 1) entertain and amaze, 2) get them off their phones/tablets for enough time to appreciate the full experience and be immersed in the story and 3) get people into the park gates?

Is it that (unfortunately) the modern audience has to have IPs and/or have an interactive experience to be entertained? I certainly don't want to see EPCOT become another fantasyland (and I certainly think that Frozen in Norway is questionable at best), but is it the worst thing to use IPs THAT FIT to help tell the story?

What do you think? I hope I'm not sparking a debate, it's just something I'm genuinely interested in. Thanks!

Having not been born yet, I'm not in a position to say, but it goes without saying the '80s were a different time. Only 10 years later, the rise of 'mainstream' IP would take a few large steps forward with the Disney Renaissance and home media. I'm sure it was easier to invest your attention elsewhere in a world where things like the internet, The Little Mermaid, and The Lion King didn't exist. I don't think folks were going frantic over adding a Great Mouse Detective ride before that. As for the edutainment, once again, before the internet. I was but a tyke, but I feel like I have a memory/idea of the general 'new' feeling (confusion, interest) in regards to the internet... that's how I picture Epcot in the '80s. Simpler times. With today's advancements, you *could* flesh out the park in the original way, but I don't think that would completely change people's perspectives or level of interest. Not unless they're showcasing Back to the Future-esque hover boards.

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

I will probably not have the popular opinion here, but hear me out.

I'm willing to accept that Epcot is going to be IP filled- if that means the Disney corp has to invest heavily in cleaning up the park and adding more attractions. (can a girl get some shade too? I know benches are asking too much...)

The Epcot of the past is dead, gone, and buried (the tombstones are front and center) and the whole shebang needs revamped. The original ideas of Epcot are no longer interesting enough for today's brand new guests who probably relate Aladdin more to Morocco than the original idea of the pavillion being a showcase of Morocco. ((Please note, Today's Brand New Guests and not Those Of You Who Have Been Coming To The Park Since Opening Day. There's a HUGE difference there. Yall have spent your money with Disney, they're out to milk the fresh, new, younger cows now))

Not saying I'm HAPPY with the change, but Disney has sat on their hands long enough and left the park go stale, today's consumers will accept anything shoehorned into that park as long as it's open by their vacation time.

Totally IMHO, and FWIW, and whatever other stance shortening bunch of letters ya'll wanna add. :\

 

[yeti]

If characters can exist in concert with Epcot's focus on reality, as opposed to fantasy, I'm ok with it. They obviously aren't necessary, but if this is the only way they can imagine revitalizing Epcot, so be it. As long as they expand instead of replace--Disney needs to learn to add space, without awkwardly retrofitting original infrastructure like Frozen Ever After or the Star Wars project in DL. Hopefully they'll realize this sooner or later.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Having not been born yet, I'm not in a position to say, but it goes without saying the '80s were a different time. Only 10 years later, the rise of 'mainstream' IP would take a few large steps forward with the Disney Renaissance and home media. I'm sure it was easier to invest your attention elsewhere in a world where things like the internet, The Little Mermaid, and The Lion King didn't exist. I don't think folks were going frantic over adding a Great Mouse Detective ride before that. As for the edutainment, once again, before the internet. I was but a tyke, but I feel like I have a memory/idea of the general 'new' feeling (confusion, interest) in regards to the internet... that's how I picture Epcot in the '80s. Simpler times. With today's advancements, you *could* flesh out the park in the original way, but I don't think that would completely change people's perspectives or level of interest. Not unless they're showcasing Back to the Future-esque hover boards.

The issue is not a lack of public interest, just Disney's.

 

[Herbie]

The issue is not a lack of public interest, just Disney's.

Between IPs and the experiences of years' past, there's definitely more so a public interest in IPs.
If the general guest crowd were aware of the experiences of years' past, only maybe would they be more interested. Only maybe.

 

[P_Radden]

Part of the issue is how Disney designed and build EPCOT Center relying on corporate sponsorship for the Future World pavilions. Sure this sounds like a good idea to get big corporations to foot the bill for these million dollar pavilions but what happens when the sponsorship's end? The buildings sit and decay or are closed in plain sight for years.

Disney needs to quit being stingy and stubborn and cough up some damn money and improve the Future World pavilions themselves, with or without the help of corporate sponsorships.

 

[jt04]

Endless creatively void possibilities. The timeless attractions at Disney World are largely original concepts, not IP based. Those that are based in IP suffer from many things, but one large issue is the Tomorrowland effect. At times the relevance fades.

Attractions that aren't based on a known intellectual property only get dated by the technology presented in those attractions. Seemingly any new build now a days is going to be based on an IP and that's devastatingly short sighted. Quality and theme should be the only contributing factor to attraction decisions.

This is very much the Iger way of thinking. He basically said that he is only doing IP based additions from now on:

I encourage you to read this article for perspective: http://micechat.com/101023-tim-grassey-addicted-easy-money/

I do understand what the author is saying. Unfortunately we live in a day when wall street has more sway than main street. It is a reality that has to be worked around by creatives being even more creative within the boundaries they are given. Not everyone will be pleased but it is what it is.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Between IPs and the experiences of years' past, there's definitely more so a public interest in IPs.
If the general guest crowd were aware of the experiences of years' past, only maybe would they be more interested. Only maybe.

The "general public" is not some singular all keeping hive mind. It's just an excuse to push whatever is easiest and people buy into its nonsense out of guilt for challenging the mighty public desires.

 

[ford91exploder]

Well, Cat Can got demolished so they've been busy over at the Studios...

That was to reduce tax liability, While Cat Canyon still stood it was taxable.

 

[fractal]

There's one who would be back in a flash if he had the right terms.

Sadly a lot of today's management wouldn't even know who he is.

Eddie Sotto? I think he would be perfect.

 

[alphac2005]

I was born in the late 70's and went to Epcot about a year after it opened and was in elementary school. We did MK and then 2 full days at EPCOT. I LOVED it over MK. I felt inspired and had a sense of awe. It sparked my love of the sciences and communications (which I went on to double major in college).

We always spent at least a day and a half there on later trips. Now, it seems like a worn out sad relic... A museum of the past.

I remember the Dream Keeper and Figment, and there were no IPs in the park and it was fine. We actually learned about the culture of countries and loved The Maelstrom... Now it's Elsas boat ride. I'm sure the Norweigans are delighted that she is reigning over their pavilion now.

I was born in 1978 and EPCOT inspired me so much as a child that you can't even quantify it. Space, science, technology, and a fascination with how electronics work and can be designed all were ignited by visiting EPCOT CENTER as a child. My love of international travel and culture, I'm sure EPCOT had something to do with that as well. There are countless numbers of us that visited a mere theme park that was so much more. I've learned through our kids that even though they have so much stuff (good and bad) at their disposal, they crave knowledge and are fascinated about things just as we were. That opportunity no longer exists for them at Epcot and it's a shame.

Imagine that, a corporation that can actually make lots of money off of people learning things and having a great time? I'm no rose colored glasses type of guy because there were certain pavilions that I found be painfully dull in the early years of EPCOT CENTER, but my goodness, Horizons, World of Motion, Imagination, Spaceship Earth are some of the best creations in the history of the company. Even charming boat rides like Living with the Land and El Rio del Tiempo. Grand Fiesta Tour is one of the few original intellectual property-less attractions that have become character laden that I actually really enjoy. They fit the theme well and the old attraction was painfully outdated. (A ride with films made in the 70s, ackkk!)

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

Part of the issue is how Disney designed and build EPCOT Center relying on corporate sponsorship for the Future World pavilions. Sure this sounds like a good idea to get big corporations to foot the bill for these million dollar pavilions but what happens when the sponsorship's end? The buildings sit and decay or are closed in plain sight for years.

Disney needs to quit being stingy and stubborn and cough up some damn money and improve the Future World pavilions themselves, with or without the help of corporate sponsorships.

I really hate this... everything about this. Waiting for sponsors to take over a "sit and decay or closed in plain sight for years" pavillion... let's be real. Who would look at that and find it a worthwhile investment when Disney, the corporation behind Epcot, doesn't?

Eddie Sotto? I think he would be perfect.

Yep- I was thinking Tony Baxter. The two together though... aw man. Now I'm sad.

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

I have a hard time believing Iger gives 2 cents about Epcot at all (I'd love for him to accurately name more than one ride at the park - saying "the car one" or "the one in the golf ball" doesn't count). The issues with the park are the same now as they were when he first became CEO in 2005. After 10 years on the job, why would he suddenly care now?

And at any rate, look at some of the changes that were made to Epcot during his tenure:

• Wonders of Life closed permanently in early 2007
• Nemo shoehorned into The Living Seas
• Donald and Co. take over El Rio del Tiempo
  
• Imagination decays into a movie preview space
• Innoventions stagnates and is essentially 2/3 closed
  
• Character spot expands
• 3 new restaurants are added to World Showcase; no new rides are added
• Entertainment cuts across the park
• Frozen is shoehorned into Norway

Now we did get a revamped Test Track and the new Soarin' film is much appreciated (though done regardless of Epcot), but those pluses are just cancelled out by things like an incomplete SSE refurbishment and decaying UoE that continues to lose effects and animatronics.

But look at that list - is this REALLY the guy we want signing off on any changes to Epcot? Iger doesn't have a creative bone in his body. He only cares about profit margins and "synergy." It's why I can't even advocate for him overseeing Epcot's demise into Magic Kingdom 2.0. With him, all we would get is the Epcot version of Toy Story Playland: character overlays of anything and everything at the lowest cost possible.

Epcot is hurting, no doubt. But I'd rather let it hurt another 2-3 years if it meant there was a chance of a getting a new CEO who sees the parks for what they should be: a space for creative and technological achievement rather than places to showcase trendy IPs and acquisitions.