Journey of Water featuring Moana coming to Epcot

[UNCgolf]

That the ride had so few people on it even after its closure was announced is to me an even clearer indication that such attractions are not as popular as we here think (or wish) they were.

You're not thinking about the fact that it's an omnimover with a very high capacity, though -- the kind of ride Disney doesn't really build anymore (although Guardians and Rat have great capacity, thankfully). Little Mermaid is an omnimover and yet I think its max capacity is nearly 1k less per hour than Horizons. With attendance levels from that time period, it would be nearly impossible for the ride to ever have a long wait.

It could have 1000+ people riding per hour and still have gaps of 5+ minutes with no one boarding because it could churn through so many guests. Even on the days when they wandered the sets, it could have easily served 10-15,000 people over the course of the day (not saying it actually did, but mathematically it would have been very possible).

Also, as I said, you're looking at it when the ride was old and outdated (which is certainly part of the reason they haven't attempted anything else like it -- they don't want to have to deal with semi-regular updates). It was generally a busy attraction -- the fact that it wasn't as busy on a few random days when it was outdated doesn't really tell you anything about the overall popularity when it was newer.

I'm not even suggesting it was still popular in 1995 (I think it was probably less popular than it was 5 years earlier). I'm just pointing out that the fact a couple of people were able to observe the ride and find gaps in which to jump onto the sets doesn't really tell much about the popularity or number of riders when considering all factors. And it absolutely was very popular at one point in time.

 

[mightynine]

The past 15 years or so.

So you don’t know what sci-fi dystopia is.

Now, did Epcot have some under-utilized areas or lack of trees/water features after they were removed for no good reason, mainly in the hub? Sure! But hardly what could be considered dystopian.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

This isn’t an especially meaningful metric, though. Watching a movie and experiencing an attraction based on that movie are two very different things. If you’re asking me to choose, I would always prefer the movie to the attraction, even if I really love the latter.

In context, the point I was refuting was the idea that kids aren't interested in what EPCOT used to offer because "better versions" can be accessed from their phones - but if better versions of Moana / Star Wars / Marvel (as cited by lazyboy) exist in their phones too, then what's the point of building something like Journey of Water? At least something like Rise of the Resistance could be reasonably argued as a more unique and invigorating experience than watching the movie it's based on - But Journey of Water will clearly not be that, so the point about phone access is kind of null. Not to mention that I won't find a more entertaining diatribe on the invention of the wheel on my phone than I could have gotten from riding World of Motion.

My point was nearly yours - that watching a movie (especially on your phone) and experiencing an attraction are just not comparable, and that access to one doesn't really undercut the value of the other.

 

[LittleBuford]

You're not thinking about the fact that it's an omnimover with a very high capacity, though -- the kind of ride Disney doesn't really build anymore (although Guardians and Rat have great capacity, thankfully). Little Mermaid is an omnimover and yet I think its max capacity is nearly 1k less per hour than Horizons. With attendance levels from that time period, it would be nearly impossible for the ride to ever have a long wait.

It could have 1000+ people riding per hour and still have gaps of 5+ minutes with no one boarding because it could churn through so many guests. Even on the days when they wandered the sets, it could have easily served 10-15,000 people over the course of the day (not saying it actually did, but mathematically it would have been very possible).

Also, as I said, you're looking at it when the ride was old and outdated (which is certainly part of the reason they haven't attempted anything else like it -- they don't want to have to deal with semi-regular updates). It was generally a busy attraction -- the fact that it wasn't as busy on a few random days when it was outdated doesn't really tell you anything about the overall popularity when it was newer.

I'm not even suggesting it was still popular in 1995 (I think it was probably less popular than it was 5 years earlier). I'm just pointing out that the fact a couple of people were able to observe the ride and find gaps in which to jump onto the sets doesn't really tell much about the popularity or number of riders when considering all factors.

I see what you’re saying, but I stand by my original hunch (and that’s all it is) that such rides hold only limited appeal now. As you say, it’s a moot point anyway, since Disney isn’t likely to build anything in the same mould again.

 

[LittleBuford]

In context, the point I was refuting was the idea that kids aren't interested in what EPCOT used to offer because "better versions" can be accessed from their phones - but if better versions of Moana / Star Wars / Marvel (as cited by lazyboy) exist in their phones too, then what's the point of building something like Journey of Water? At least something like Rise of the Resistance could be reasonably argued as a more unique and invigorating experience than watching the movie it's based on - But Journey of Water will clearly not be that, so the point about phone access is kind of null. Not to mention that I won't find a more entertaining diatribe on the invention of the wheel on my phone than I could have gotten from riding World of Motion.

My point was nearly yours - that watching a movie (especially on your phone) and experiencing an attraction are just not comparable, and that access to one doesn't really undercut the value of the other.

Got it—thanks for explaining. I’m having a slow day.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Got it—thanks for explaining. I’m having a slow day.

No worries, it's not just you. Things are definitely getting confusing in this thread. Lots of interwoven points that don't all quite make sense in isolation.

 

[UNCgolf]

I see what you’re saying, but I stand by my original hunch (and that’s all it is) that such rides hold only limited appeal now. As you say, it’s a moot point anyway, since Disney isn’t likely to build anything in the same mould again.

I do think that Spaceship Earth's relative popularity (despite the fact they've really dropped the ball on the ending part of the ride and let it stagnate) means a new version of Horizons could still attract enough guests to be worth building. I know it doesn't look all that popular when it has 10 minute waits, but like I said, even a 20 minute wait means nearly a thousand people are waiting to ride. That would be a roughly 60 minute wait for Peter Pan. Plus they last so much longer than the kind of rides Disney builds now that they're doubly good for capacity -- move more people through in an hour and keep them busy for longer.

But yes, it's very unlikely Disney ever builds anything like it again. Unfortunately for me!

 

[dreday3]

My point was never that better versions of IP existed in their phones, that was someone's interpretation of what i was saying. But it's hard to explain anything in this forum while others who "know better" wait to pounce

My point was in 1983 we didn't have access to what we have now. Nothing out there was really telling us about the future. No new tech info was readily available. Heck, what was tech?
So to go on Horizons, to see what was possible -in the future- is part of what made the ride so special. At least that's how it was for me as a young girl.

Today kids have access to that type of info at the ready, in the palm of their hands. The internet. It's not so mysterious anymore.

So my point is that a slow moving ride based on new technology won't be as appealing or exciting to most kids today as a coaster built based on Iron Man would be. Or whoever.

 

[Incomudro]

So you don’t know what sci-fi dystopia is. Got it, thanks!

Epcot had become to look ike the landscape of any number of 1970's dystopian scifi movies.
Acres of concrete and grey.
I've got to give you the specific movie examples, or my impression isn't correct?
Here's one: Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.

 

[mightynine]

Epcot had become to look ike the landscape of any number of 1970's dystopian scifi movies.
Acres of concrete and grey.
I've got to give you the specific movie examples, or my impression isn't correct?
Here's one: Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.

And whose fault was that? Couldn’t be the people who ran the park and had no clue what to do.

I still think to say dystopian is quite the stretch.

 

[Incomudro]

My point was never that better versions of IP existed in their phones. But it's hard to explain anything in this forum while others who "know better" wait to pounce

My point was in 1983 we didn't have access to what we have now. Nothing out there was really telling us about the future. No new tech info was readily available. Heck, what was tech?
So to go on Horizons, to see what was possible -in the future- is part of what made the ride so special. At least that's how it was for me as a young girl.

Today kids have access to that type of info at the ready, in the palm of their hands. The internet. It's not so mysterious anymore.

So my point is that a slow moving ride based on new technology won't be as appealing or exciting to most kids today as a coaster built based on Iron Man would be. Or whoever.

We used to visit Epcot to find out what future tech might be like.
See it, hear it, maybe even try it for the first time.
It was a really cool time, and I miss it as much as anyone else.

 

[Incomudro]

And whose fault was that? Couldn’t be the people who ran the park and had no clue what to do.

I still think to say dystopian is quite the stretch.

Right.
Which is why I welcome the move away from that.

 

[UNCgolf]

So my point is that a slow moving ride based on new technology won't be as appealing or exciting to most kids today as a coaster built based on Iron Man would be. Or whoever.

I get what you're saying, but EPCOT was a pretty big risk to take when it was built. Building a park full of movie rides would have been a much easier (and more appealing/marketable) choice in 1983 just like it is now. It's not like Disney was making the obvious business choice at the time.

That's how the whole "EPCOT is boring and no kids want to go there" thing got started -- it wasn't full of Disney characters etc. -- and it definitely was boring to some kids. But other kids loved it (like me -- it's the whole reason I fell in love with WDW), and I think that's the way it would go today as well. It wouldn't be for everyone, but it might attract a different type of guest and expand the customer base.

Who knows, though? You could be absolutely right. And Disney isn't going to do anything like it again (for better or worse, they're almost entirely about making the best/most obvious spreadsheet choice now), so we'll never find out!

 

[Incomudro]

I get what you're saying, but EPCOT was a pretty big risk to take when it was built. Building a park full of movie rides would have been a much easier (and more appealing/marketable) choice in 1983 just like it is now. It's not like Disney was making the obvious business choice at the time.

That's how the whole "EPCOT is boring and no kids want to go there" thing got started -- it wasn't full of Disney characters etc.

Epcot was the more adult of the two (or three) parks back then.
Sure some kids may have found it to be boring, but the premise of presenting "the future" really worked back then.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I get what you're saying, but EPCOT was a pretty big risk to take when it was built. Building a park full of movie rides would have been a much easier (and more appealing/marketable) choice in 1983 just like it is now. It's not like Disney was making the obvious business choice at the time.

That's how the whole "EPCOT is boring and no kids want to go there" thing got started -- it wasn't full of Disney characters etc. -- and it definitely was boring to some kids. But other kids loved it, and I think that's the way it would go today as well. It wouldn't be for everyone, but it might attract a different type of guest and expand the customer base.

Who knows, though? You could be absolutely right. And Disney isn't going to do anything like it again (for better or worse, they're almost entirely about making the best/most obvious spreadsheet choice now), so we'll never find out!

20 years after EPCOT opened Disney built a park based almost exclusively on movies the studio released and to this day it's still their least attended.

There were other factors that contributed to this, but there's a reason why EPCOT Center in its heyday was more successful than Disney Studios Paris has ever been.

 

[lazyboy97o]

20 years after EPCOT opened Disney built a park based exclusively on movies the studio released and to this day it's still their least attended.

There were other factors that contributed to this, but there's a reason why EPCOT Center in its heyday was more successful than Disney Studios Paris has ever been.

And EPCOT Center is still loaded with so much cultural cache that Disney wants Evolved EPCOT to make people think of EPCOT Center.

 

[UNCgolf]

20 years after EPCOT opened Disney built a park based exclusively on movies the studio released and to this day it's still their least attended.

There were other factors that contributed to this, but there's a reason why EPCOT Center in its heyday was more successful than Disney Studios Paris has ever been.

EPCOT is my favorite park ever, but I think the other factors you mention are so vastly important that there's no fair comparison between WDSP and EPCOT.

If WDSP opened with a bunch of impressive attractions based on Disney movies, with well themed areas, it would have been pretty successful. That's not what close to what they built, though.

Regardless, I think you misinterpreted my post, or didn't see the context of what I was responding to. I wasn't arguing that's what Disney should have done -- just that it would have been the easier choice then just like it's the easier choice now.

 

[No Name]

Obviously each to their own, but I am sure there are some significantly better uses of this space than a landscaped walk-though.

Perhaps this landscaping should be integrated throughout the design of world nature rather than be a specific attraction siphoned off from everything else. People say Epcot is too concrete-heavy and think this is a solution… it is not.

 

[doctornick]

this thread is blowing up, glad to see everyone so excited for this!

The irony is that every time some new information or details come out about this, it reinforces to me how it’s a solid fit for the area and Epcot in general and is the kind of smaller scale diversion that Disney doesn’t build enough of anymore… and then I read the comments decrying it yet again.

I would think this new release emphasizing the water cycle aspect will help to stop people from dismissively calling it a splash pad in order to insult it, but I doubt we’d be that lucky.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

The irony is that every time some new information or details come out about this, it seems to me that it’s a solid fit for the area and Epcot in general and is the kind of smaller scale diversion that Disney doesn’t build enough of anymore… and then I read the comments decrying it yet again.

I would think this new release emphasizing the water cycle aspect will help to stop people from dismissively calling it a splash pad in order to insult it, but I doubt we’d be that lucky.

While I tend to agree that Disney needs to get back in the habit of building more small, hidden gems that fill time between the major tentpole attractions, I think my issue is that more and more it seems to me like that's not actually what they're doing here.

Consider how you might feel if they'd built Journey of Water here:

Then consider that this is basically what they're doing, only at EPCOT. Sure, it's close to some areas where you could argue that Moana fits (Adventureland in my example, or, more tenuously, The Seas at EPCOT), and you could argue that the space was underutilized before. But having it encroach into an established area the way it is throws off larger dynamics of the park. That they're essentially dead-ending the walkthrough so that it won't be accessible from the central plaza is all the worse for these dynamics, and makes the space more confusing and irregular than it was before.

The art is new, but the bit about the water cycle being central to this attraction has been known since the beginning, so this doesn't really move the needle for me one way or the other.

It just kinda feels like they don't have a clear vision for what the front half of the park is meant to be now, except the place where Spaceship Earth is, a place with a vaguely futuristic but really more contemporary vibe, and now more Disney characters (and aquisitions) than ever will call it home because . . . well, people like those things, and we want people to come to EPCOT, so they're here now.

Add to this the fact that both Moana the movie and Moana the character are deserving of larger representation within the resort and it compounds the issue. Why is EPCOT the park where Disney takes massive properties and bunts with them? Frozen, Moana, Nemo . . . these movies made nearly $3 Billion between them, and not including the given sequels. Why do we get a 2 C Tickets and an B Ticket attraction out of them? Especially when two of those properties are crying out to be in Magic Kingdom instead?

Why is Moana sitting in the shadow of Spaceship Earth when she should very obviously be in the shade of the Adventureland palms? It just smacks of poor planning and under-investment, which seem to be emblematic of the current direction of the resort and people take issue with that. It feels like damage control because that's what it is. EPCOT has been the most visible case of this. The park has been failing because Disney refuses to invest properly, and their solution is to . . . refuse to invest properly. At least Cosmic Rewind had a more than healthy budget, though after riding it myself I'll be darned if I could tell you where that money went.

Had they build this in the place that made the most thematic sense, or had they invested seriously in one of their biggest new Princess characters, or had they developed an attraction that didn't feel wholly tacked on to the space that already exists around it, and if they didn't have a suspiciously lousy track record of not doing all these things despite the overwhelming wealth and success of the resort enterprise . . . perhaps we wouldn't have so much to decry.