Jim Hill and Grizz's Call to Arms

[SirNim]

This was an hypothetical example of one of many possibilities.

Well aware was I of that.

Again, you are using psycho babble to make your point. Because the original idea for the pavilion was about LIFE, it can NEVER EVER be changed? Where is the logic in that? That's called being an ideologue, not concerned with making something better, it just HAS TO BE A CERTAIN WAY.

WOL can be improved, made better, no doubt. My point is that if Disney's Imagineers cannot come up with an exciting, informative, and inspirational attraction based on the remarkableness of life, well then what can they create?! The pavilion can change, but its focus must remain on life.

If Epcot had a pavilion based on horse manure in 1982, and they wanted to change it tomorrow, by your logic, they shouldn't because that would change the original message of the pavilion.

Disney was out to create an uncommon, wonderful new concept in entertainment. The themes Disney wove into the park - Energy, Life, Future, Transportation, Imagination, Earth, Sea - this is not inconsequential, trivial stuff. For Disney to have created a pavilion out of any of these themes, they must have had the foresight to realize there was and is a goldmine of potential and possibility with which to update and enhance the pavilions as time progressed. By my logic, Disney must carefully evaluate the themes they chose to develop into pavilions, with an EYE on the FUTURE - this is, after all, a park based on the FUTURE WORLD.

Why do they HAVE TO further the purpose of the pavilion if they can get a better idea/concept for it? Are you adverse to them coming up with a BETTER concept if it is different? If they keep the same theme, are they not allowed to attempt to alter the way in which the message is told?

They must further the purpose of the pavilion which each "new"/"replaced" attraction in the pavilion. If the attraction does not enhance the purpose, it is of no use - detrimental to the purpose of Epcot. Dead weight. If the Imagineers/management cannot/does not want to assimilate the new attraction into the purpose, they are spitting into the purpose of Epcot. Better idea/concept? If the THEME of the pavilion remains (life, energy, etc.), fine. If the theme is changed, disregarded, etc, that is not condoned. Yes, they CAN alter the way the message is told. This is the major point of The Land's rehab. The message will be delivered slightly differently - via the vehicle of travel. It remains to be seen if this vehicle will contribute/further the purpose of The Land - that is what we are trying to have it do. If this theme somehow cheapens or debases The Land, then it is against Epcot's purpose.

Face facts, the way the so called "message" of The Land is being told now, STINKS. So they are using a new way in which to convey this message.

The message now is one of serenity, harmony with nature. Personally, I love it. But Disney is looking to draw the crowds, the money. So the message conveyor is being altered to a transportation center. Pump up the excitement. I understand your point - I just think there might be a more imaginative, inspired way to do things.

By that logic EVERY single principal of EPCOT was pure genius and should never be altered. If everything was that brilliant it would have held the test of time, people would have flocked to every single original idea they had. But that wasn't the case. Do you think Disney wants to spend $100 million on a new ride if they can keep what they have and not spend the $$$

Of course not, not everything Epcot created was 100% genius. And of course - the whole PREMISE of the park is progress towards a better, Future World. Attractions must be altered to keep up with the times. I admit that. It's the truth. The methods of entertaining, informing, and inspiring must change/progress with the times, but they must ALWAYS be there. Key is the last one - inspiration. This is the big one. Entertainment is a given. Disney's perfected entertainment. Information is simple to assimilate into attractions as well. But the KEY is to make the attractions INSPIRING for all generations - to inspire them to achieve the potential of the future. That's what it is all about. In my opinion, some recent changes in Epcot have disregarded this "inspiration" factor, most notable Test Track. It's entertainment with a thin veneer of information, but it pretty much lacks any and all inspiration. It is my wish to make Epcot a place where inspiration can prosper again.

You fail to realize that EPCOT was a business in 1982 and still is today. Because something worked 20 years ago doesn't mean it automatically does today and doesn't need to be "tweaked".

I have never denounced change, tweaking, etc. My point is that the purpose of the pavilions - to entertain, inform about a particular subject facing humanity yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and most importantly, to inspire - must be retained and advanced.

Again, you seem to think a pavilion about LIFE is the greatest thing since sliced bread and should never be changed or removed.

Is sliced bread the greatest thing since life?

If the majority of guests these days feel that ENERGY or LIFE is too mundane for them or not interesting enough, should Disney just thumb their noses at them and say "nope we ain't changing it, this was how the pavilion was originally conceived and it's staying that way" ?

Walt's goal was to make a place where families could have fun together. Epcot expanded this goal and added the purpose of inspiring and informing.

Walt, as you know, did many educational films. He MADE so many topics interesting - brought them into the public spotlight. Heck, "Donald in Mathmagicland" today remains at the apex of my appreciation.

Yes, you will have people that think the themes of the Future World are mundane. People these days still have closed minds. They are parochial. But Walt Disney himself was able to transform such dreary information into provocative entertainment. The Imagineers retain this potential... They can.

It's up to management to realize this.

 

[askmike1]

Is anyone else here suprised that Jim Hill hasn't responded to our criticism yet?

Considering he probably writes his articles in advance, I wouldn't count on a rebuttle untill either Friday or Monday.

Also, I agree with KevinPage that a Pavillion can change. Just because there has been a Life pavillion since park opening doesn't mean there still has to be one today. Times change, and pavillions should too. After all we got a great space pavillion out of (an equally great) Horizon's pavillion.

-Michael

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Okay, here we go people

First to SirNim:

I must ask what "life" are you referring to in your comments? I know one thing for SURE. Without one certain LIFE (babies) there'd be NO FAMILIES to enjoy visiting WDW, DL, or any other Disney theme park. So, I'd like you to clarify your comments to that end.

Next, to those of you who feel that Jim Hill has "attacked" or offended Grizz, I say this: YOU ARE WRONG!!! And I say that even though I am a big fan of Grizz, and not Jim Hill. Here's why:

If you read the article, in its' ENTIRETY, you will see where Mr. Hill time and time again, backs up his views with FACTS. Now, I totally agree with him that change is a part of life. (paraphrasing his overriding theme of his article). I for one would not visit if EVERYTHING in each park always stayed the same. And he commented on how Walt Disney said HIMSELF that Epcot would never be complete. This lends to Walts concept of a park that would continue to evolve right along with the rest of the world. What we see here is what I see happen a lot on this site. Sometimes, people will be attacked for merely disagreeing with "the crowd" or someone of more, shall we say, "popularity" on these boards. And some of these same people will try to convince us how ENLIGHTENED they are in comparison to those of us to tend to believe differently. As I always say on many of the subjects on these boards, we must always remember that Disney, is, and will ALWAYS BE, a business. To think ANY differently, is, (as has been said about me in other threads on these boards), UNREALISTIC. That being said, the board members, imagineers, and leadership at Disney must always operate under that belief. If they didn't, they'd spend themselves right out of business. How many of you out there want to see that happen?

NOT ME!!!

 

[SirNim]

I am referring doubly to both the Wonders of Life pavilion and to the concept on which the pavilion is based.

Please note I only used WOL in my retort because Kevin mentioned WOL. I was utilizing the example which was extended to me.


My clear point, in summation, is that changes are necessary - and welcome. But they must dutifully adhere to the fundamental principle (purpose - e.g. life, energy, transportation, symbiosis, imagination, etc.) of the pavilion in which they are installed. They also must continue to inspire the Guests who experience them.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Well Sir

I must disagree slightly with you on this subject:

I don't believe that they must adhere to anything really. What they MUST do is to continue to entertain us enough to keep us coming back for more. That's why you see the debate here sometimes as it relates to dark rides, versus thrill rides. (i.e. which is better for the most riders?) I think a lot of us here, myself included, need to come to grips with the fact that things ARE going to change eventually. Whether that's the loss of our personal "favorite ride", or the changing of our favorite parade, etc. etc. Disney, some day, won't resemble, or if they do, slightly so, anything that most of us will have encountered as children. I mean, 50 years from now, what will kids know about Snow White? Or Alice in Wonderland? So that begs the question: What should Disney do? Should they continue to come up with new and innovative rides and ride technology, based on new storylines? Or should they continue to try and repackage old technology and storylines, with modern AA's, paint, and que areas? I love the "old school" Disney rides myself. But even I know they won't be around forever.

So, as it relates to Living With The Land, no they MUST do nothing. Except make money. Cause when it gets down to it, that's what the shareholders (which a lot of you on these very boards, though you seem to remain awfully quiet on "certain" subjects.) expect.

 

[dxwwf3]

So, as it relates to Living With The Land, no they MUST do nothing. Except make money. Cause when it gets down to it, that's what the shareholders (which a lot of you on these very boards, though you seem to remain awfully quiet on "certain" subjects.) expect.

But in order to keep making money they must listen to the repeat visitors and find out what they like the best. They should be a top priority as well. If we are treated well, Disney knows we will spend the money :wave:

Now, of course, they cannot forget about the average once or twice in a lifetime guest either. But I'm sure that the average guest doesn't care too much for an attraction such as the Tomorrowland Transit Authority. But from the looks of things here, it seems to be one of the most popular attractions among the huge fans. There has to be a balance.

 

[SirNim]

They must entertain, yes, but Epcot was conceived with additional purposes - to inform and inspire Guests to the possibilities of the Future.

Yes, it's my mantra. It's Epcot's too.

"Epcot Center is inspired by Walt Disney's creative genius. Here, human achievements are celebrated through imagination, the wonders of enterprise, and concepts of a future that promises new and exciting benefits for all.

May Epcot Center entertain, inform and inspire. And, above all, may it instill a new sense of belief and pride in man's ability to shape a world that offers hope to people everywhere."

ANY CHANGE TO EPCOT MUST ADHERE TO THIS FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Well X

That's why Disney employs all those people who take surveys throughout the parks from you. The Wife and I couldn't walk 20 yards past an entrance turnstile without having to stand there for 5 minutes (not a big deal) we actually enjoyed it, giving our info to someone surveying us on our vacation.
Disney DOES care about what its' guests think about the parks, or they would have been out of business a long time ago. If you look at the attendance figures for last year and this, I'd think it's a pretty good indication of that. The most difficult aspect of any business is balance. You have to strike a balance between debits/credits in the end. And obviously you want more credits than debits. That's what it gets down to. For example, if I survey and find that the attendance rates at MGM drop off severely after a certain hour, guess what? I'm going to reduce the hours of operation. Cause if I don't, I'm going to be paying more to run the park that last hour or two, than I actually take in. Here's why:

(1) With the advent of "park hoppers" the advantage that Disney had of charging you to re-ride their most popular attractions is gone. Remember the days of having to purchase ticket books, just to get your hands on the "e" tickets? Getting home with a book full of A,B etc. tickets, which you knew you most likely wouldn't use? Now they're having to pay cms to stand at attractions that for the last hour of the day,that may not produce 100 riders. Now, 100 riders sounds like a lot, but let's look at it on a more global perspective. I don't know what the avg. daily attendance of any one park there is, but I"m guesssing it's in the 10's of thousands. So, if you now take some of those numbers, and survey all of the most popular attractions throughout that park, and come up with that same average, is it really worth keeping open that last hour of the day? I mean, the riders aren't paying to ride, and they likelyhood they will spend anything on their way out of the parks is HIGHLY unlikely. Most are just trying to get back to their hotel or parking lot in a hurry to get out of there. (please see threads about overcrowded busses, monorails, ferries, etc. at closing). So, you see that's a very difficult balance to strike and still please everyone all of the time.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Now, on to SirNim

While I agree that Epcot should adhere to the basic principles that Walt envisioned for Epcot, where I differ is that we can't possibly expect the Imagineers currently employed with that responsibility, to share the EXACT visions/ideas of Walt. And no disrespect intended, but maybe that's a good thing.

If we were to say to the Imagineers, okay, you can only come up with ideas for rides/attractions that Walt would have come up with, or liked, what could we expect? You can only share the vision that WALT had for Epcot, and not your own. Isn't part of being a great Artist, which is really what imagineers are, having the freedom to express their own ideas/visions? I'm no art expert, but after having read the book, Walt Disney Imagineering, what I saw was creative freedom. Walt didn't hold back his people. He didn't expect them to share HIS vision, but to express that vision, thru their OWN EYES. IF he didn't like it, he'd say change it. Yes, that's the beauty of being the boss. But in the end, he gave them creative freedom. And listened to their ideas freely.

So, to say they must adhere to Walts principles for the "idea" of Epcot is somewhat vague. I mean, aren't they trying to do that with Mission Space, Soarin', Test Track, etc. ? But yet, those were ideas that were expressed thru the freedom of thought and expression. What I think we ARE seeing is an extension of Walts ideas thru the eyes of todays imagineers.

 

[KevinPage]

Yes, you will have people that think the themes of the Future World are mundane. People these days still have closed minds. They are parochial. But Walt Disney himself was able to transform such dreary information into provocative entertainment. The Imagineers retain this potential... They can.It's up to management to realize this.

We can agree to disagree. I am of the belief that a pavillon CAN have a completely new theme if one comes along OR change the way in which the existing message is told.

I'm not so excited about the pavillon of Energy. If they have a better more enjoyable way to explore another aspect of life/humanity/the world around us, I say "go for it".

Most of the pavillons in Future World are not worth my time over the past few years, so I'm glad about current changes (not all of them, Imagination namely).

 

[DisneyMemories]

Ok here's a thought about ECPOT,(keep in mind i've not been theres since 92 either) But l was there l really enjoyed Horizons because to me that one attraction kinda showed what might be in the future. Now for some reason only known to disney,they got rid of it. If they want to follow Walts idea for the Expermintal Prototype City Of Tommorrow then why now take ideas from the former attraction and create a attraction that would give visitors the experiance of what life would be like living under the sea (redesign The Living Seas,or add to it). Giving the visitor a feeling of climbing aboard a submarine and traveling to a undersea city almost a 20k feel but maybe without having a lagoon (kinda like the 20k attraction in toyko). Also make another concept attraction around mission space of what it be like living in space with astronaut food for sale and to enhance it give the experiance a mission space feel as if blasting off to another planet or space station. With the Land keep the boat ride,but make it a bit more exciting,Add soaring and design a future type city and have different company show off products that might be avaible in the future,like an old worlds fair showing what we may have in the future. World showcase is great,but over time allow more countrys and nations to enter the expanding epcot with their views and cultures for us to enjoy and experiance,(ie POLAND-the music,sauage,sourkraute,dessert foods,woodwork,etc. Or other countrys like AUSTRIA,SWIZTERLAND,ITALY,GREECE,RUSSIA,ETC,with their tastes,countrys highlights,and cultures. While still adding a ride or two along the way) Most us can only dream acutally visiting such countrys with security being so tight world wide,most of us can't or can afford too. So why not somehow someway try and bring the rest of the world to the happiest place on earth.Where at least in this part of our world all nations will get along PEACEFULLY.Well least with attractions like that i'd be willing to visit EPCOT more often and they won't need to get rid of most of what they have now,but only add more to it to expand with the world showcase. Oh well it's my idea of EPCOT should be like,even if parts sound crazy or have that already did that feel to it.:wave:

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Now wait a minute Sir

So, you're going to say that anyone who disagrees with your view on this subject are closed minded? Parochial? Because we want more than a fresh coat of paint and new aa's in these areas? Because we want fresh concepts that tell the story which would include our most recent advancements in technology? To include what we now know, versus what we knew then, and within the ride technology, to tell the story in a more exciting and interesting way?

Boy, tells us what you think about most of us out here with OPEN MINDS.

If you will recall, WALT DISNEY himself said that Epcot would never be completed. That statement alone speaks to the fluidity with which the imagineers at Disney MUST approach new ideas, ride technology and story lines at Epcot. This isn't the MK where Main Street can remain largely unchanged, and yet always seem new again. This is a park devoted to the future, and to all that we CAN be.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Chill Time

Whoa there Henni,
Why so combative on this subject. I don't see anyone saying your thoughts are wrong...just stating their preferences.

HennieBogan1966 First to SirNim:

I must ask what "life" are you referring to in your comments? I know one thing for SURE. Without one certain LIFE (babies) there'd be NO FAMILIES to enjoy visiting WDW, DL, or any other Disney theme park. So, I'd like you to clarify your comments to that end.

Huh? He is saying the very thing you are...that the subject of life is possibly the most important, complicated and dynamic. Therefore it deserves to be an ongoing pavilion and topic for exhibits.

Next, to those of you who feel that Jim Hill has "attacked" or offended Grizz, I say this: YOU ARE WRONG!!! And I say that even though I am a big fan of Grizz, and not Jim Hill. Here's why:

If you read the article, in its' ENTIRETY, you will see where Mr. Hill time and time again, backs up his views with FACTS.

Huh, part II. I think attack is an appropriate word. If YOU read the article in its ENTIRETY, you should identify the derogatory descriptors, the demeaning conclusions, the gross generalizations. If not attack, then maybe embarrass or demean is more to your liking.

As for Facts, please check again...Jim Hill has provided a lot of innuendo and opinion. Yes he does like to present his opinion as fact, but there is a heck of a lot more fact in this thread that in Mr. Hill's diatribe. Your approach seems to be similar to those Democrats that think everything Bush says is wrong and Kerry is the only truth...or those Republicans that paint Kerry as the great satan and Bush as the great white hope. The truth just ain't at either extreme. To support something isn't to buy the entire party line as Jim Hill usually requires.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

He certainly wasn't demeaning in any way. His opinion is his own. Just because he uses some colorful adjectives to describe what he thinks about the idea that Grizz has, doesn't mean he is attempting to demean, or embarrass anyone. Seems as though we live in a hypersensitive society these days, where anyone/everyone seems to overreact to criticisms. As for the comment that was made about life, I was just curious as to some insight into exactly what context was meant.

I am a fan of Grizz. I just don't think that Jim Hill was out of line on this one. Someone sends a "blind" request to him, and Jim Hill is entitled to his view on this one. And I can't say that I totally disagree with his thoughts/theories on this particular subject.

While you may say that his statements aren't factual, I'm guessing that he speaks from a position of some intelligence on things Disney. Obviously he has some contact with the company where these types of subjects are concerned, and stays informed as to the "thinking" of mgmt. and leadership at Disney. While he may not be privy to exact numbers, and how many of us on these boards are, I do believe he speaks from some experience on THIS particular subject.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

HennieBogan1966

While you may say that his statements aren't factual, I'm guessing that he speaks from a position of some intelligence on things Disney. Obviously he has some contact with the company where these types of subjects are concerned, and stays informed as to the "thinking" of mgmt. and leadership at Disney. While he may not be privy to exact numbers, and how many of us on these boards are, I do believe he speaks from some experience on THIS particular subject.

Hennie, you are right, Jim Hill does know a lot of Disney and does maintain an active list of contacts. I continue to read his site just for that reason. What I don't like is how he manipulates that to blur the line between fact and heresay or opinion.

As I had said much earlier in this thread, his approach is similar to filmmaker Michael Moore (who I find very entertaining). Moore starts a thought by stating well known facts, segue to probable truths to urban legends to pure opinion or even badly skewed spin. But the transition is so smooth that many just follow the line as continuous truth (except Jim is not nearly as smooth)

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Well Clemson,

I'll keep my opinions of Michael Moore (dirtbag) to myself, but I can understand your point of view regarding Jim Hill. My point was just that I didn't think that he was out of line regarding his comments or the wording he used. I think sometimes people on these boards take things a little too seriously, and it then leads to a mountain of people fighting back and forth.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Well Clemson,

I'll keep my opinions of Michael Moore (dirtbag) to myself, but I can understand your point of view regarding Jim Hill. My point was just that I didn't think that he was out of line regarding his comments or the wording he used. I think sometimes people on these boards take things a little too seriously, and it then leads to a mountain of people fighting back and forth.

Rep points for the dirtbag comment............

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Good points I hope?!!!

 

[Hakunamatata]

Good points I hope?!!!

Nothing but good points.... :wave:

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Thanks much. Glad to find someone who feels the same way out here.