Splash pad with rocks.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Journey of Water featuring Moana coming to Epcot
- Thread starter Rteetz
- Start date
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Well they still have a pile of rockwork forms over in the construction staging area (to the right of the flatbed trailer) to set in place so that's not done, but they have started at least test painting tops of some of the outcrops in the Blue Swirl area.
tparris
Well-Known Member
There are also a few rockwork “chips” staged in a small pile to the left of the construction site, in between JoW and the two service/maintenance structures. They’re currently installing a bunch of white insulation(?) pads to the left of the currently installed rockwork, and there are many footers installed as well, so it definitely seems like there’s still a good bit of rockwork that hasn’t even been installed at all yet.
tparris
Well-Known Member
That crane has been on site for at least a month now, but it’s been folded up and unused until this past week. I first noticed it active yesterday, along with another one at the CC Hall site. I’m going to take a loop on the monorail soon to see if anything significant has changed since they started actually using those cranes. Seems like steel could start rising soon for CC Hall.
No Name
Well-Known Member
aladdin2007
Well-Known Member
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
This is all correct. If the Wand had come down in a timely fashion, it would have been really neat. The hat was always foolish.
I want a Disney that does big, gaudy, risky, themed things that only Disney could do - and that gets rid of them if they don’t work. I don’t want a Disney obsessed with tasteful, non-descript rock work and Hilton Garden Inn lobbies.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
…so you’ve been to the riviera then?
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
I don’t think they should aspire to be gaudy, and I would argue that on the spectrum of gaudiness, your example of Journey of Water is actually gaudier than what it replaced. And I certainly wouldn’t have ascribed the term to either EPCOT or Animal Kingdom when they opened. When left to rot for three decades, certain aspects of the 80s aesthetic could later be perceived as gaudy, but they weren’t in their time.
I could certainly see the term being applied to anniversary decor over the years, but as an only semi-regular visitor, anniversaries represent such a small sliver of my parks experience that I couldn’t care less if they’re gaudy or tasteful. They’re temporary.
That’s not to say there’s not something lacking in some of their more recent work, but I don’t think absurd spectacle and tasteless extravagance are what’s needed. Rather, they need to ditch or soften the IP mandate, strike a better balance between modernizing and retaining detail, circle the wagons on the purpose of each park, rediscover environmental storytelling that doesn’t bludgeon you with convoluted narrative, and invest in new attractions and refurbishment rather than replacement.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
I largely agree with your prescription. Perhaps “gaudy” might better be replaced by “bold.” And EPCOT was definitely bold (and even gaudy) when in opened - a Worlds Fair decades after Worlds Fair had lost their relevance, with an enormous geodesic globe out front and a circle of simulated nations out back. For a certain, very influential group of cultural critics, World Showcase was the absolute textbook example of gaudy, one that reflected the tasteless impulse to copy at the heart of American society. So yeah, I’m back to gaudy.
AK was a bit different, a sort of very happy medium on the slide from over-the-top to tasteful rock work.
Right now, Disney is being run sort of like a lifestyle brand - subtle, cutesy, following popular trends. It’s incompatible with a big, bold theme park starring space wizards, talking animals, and superheroes.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
This sounds more like intellectual gaudiness (if such a thing exists) than architectural or aesthetic gaudiness. Bold does seem more apropos, in the same way that monuments, museums, and their ilk are often visually daring.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
A reminder: Epcot was the greatest idea ever conceived and built for a park
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
Those footers honestly confuse me a bit. They seem to run along some planters, with their rough location marked here in red:
At any rate, I don't think the chips will be placed along or near them. I would guess most of the remaining rockwork is intended to line the edges of the various pools and streams that were recently poured deeper in the attraction.
Centauri Space Station
Well-Known Member
Hard pass
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
Very much agree with all of this. I would also say that Creations and Connections are actually a step in the right direction in this regard in that they're relatively restrained in their design and, at least in the case of Connections, are based more on a simple but appropriate concepts that are easy to intuit on some basic level rather than some over-complicated backstory you have to read to understand. MouseGear, on the other hand, is an example of gaudy Disney that I am glad to see replaced.
Because a lot of the 1990s stuff that tended toward the gaudy was allowed to hang around for so long and a lot of people on here grew up with it, I think many associate something like MouseGear with Disney theming. In reality, I think most of it was probably an example of where Disney veered away from the kind of theming on which they built their reputation and catered more to the fashions of the time. For example, Tower of Terror is an example of classic Disney theming from the 1990s. That animated Tower of Terror billboard was tourist-trap level 1990s gaudiness that WDW is better without but was somehow left sitting there for decades.
This will maybe be a little controversial, but I think at least some of the hotel refurbs that have gone with a more restrained take on their theme than the often loud, post-modern takes from the 1990s are actually more appropriate for WDW than some of the decor that almost screamed THEME! Sticking characters in all the room decor, however, goes in the opposite direction if they really want to be the premium themed resort destination.
I agree with the need to be bold, but I think it's far bolder to go with a stripped-down design appropriate for the location than, for example, a giant Sorcerer Mickey hand that spells the name of the park in big sparkly letters.
No Name
Well-Known Member
I love Epcot but I very much disagree, I think Magic Kingdom was the greatest idea ever conceived and built for a park.
I liked the hat more than the wand but that’s enough disagreeing for a day.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
The hat was sheeet…it was a pin stand.
Magic kingdom was return of the Jedi…it was 2.0 with more money and shining new toys to use.
I’d say Disneyland is a good argument…not so much magic kingdom. But I do love magic kingdom. It was built so I would.
Epcot was the largest privately financed project in the US at that time. They moved so much earth and built it at what amounted to breakneck speed. Todays “standards” are laughable in comparison.
It costs BILLIONS…well over what the shell game accountants said (DAK too…fyi)…that was massive dough in 1978.
And in many ways…it’s a cultural turning point…basically all domestically made products and workers. All the “free market” defenders of the faith had put the nail in the coffin at the end of the build. WW2 generation retired and it’s been “mixed” in tutelage since.
Ayla
Well-Known Member
Stop acting like this is the very first fake rock project Disney has ever built. They are experienced in building fake rocks, as evidenced by them all over all 4 parks.
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
Yes, if there is one area Disney creativity has not deteriorated but maintained its proficiency its building fake rocks.