Journey of Water featuring Moana coming to Epcot

Epcot82Guy

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
I got to go through it today. It was drizzling, so there was no wait. It is nicely done, but the criticisms are quite valid. I will say, even with clouds, I noticed the sun and its heat coming through. So, I don't know if the amount of shade will be as great as it seems come the hot summer afternoons.

Also, even being not that crowded, it seems like a logistics nightmare. I didn't get to experience a couple of the effects, and we got caught in bottlenecks more than once.

The theme is a bit disjointed, but not as bad as I feared. I still think it would have been better as Tefiti only. But, the placement is the biggest issue. It already feels disconnected where it is, except from the Seas. And, there is a large empty area in front of the Land. Plus, I am really fearing for how the center is going to look with only 3/4 sides filled with things.
I truly wish this would have been the center of World Nature with a walkway around it, showing key parts of the attraction - where you could enter it from either side (much like the set up of the Communicore showcases). Then, have something proper in position 4/4 in the center. It just feels like it was designed by someone who hadn't ever been in the park and plunked down on a site map.
 
aladdin2007

aladdin2007

Well-Known Member
Epcot82Guy said:
I got to go through it today. It was drizzling, so there was no wait. It is nicely done, but the criticisms are quite valid. I will say, even with clouds, I noticed the sun and its heat coming through. So, I don't know if the amount of shade will be as great as it seems come the hot summer afternoons.

Also, even being not that crowded, it seems like a logistics nightmare. I didn't get to experience a couple of the effects, and we got caught in bottlenecks more than once.

The theme is a bit disjointed, but not as bad as I feared. I still think it would have been better as Tefiti only. But, the placement is the biggest issue. It already feels disconnected where it is, except from the Seas. And, there is a large empty area in front of the Land. Plus, I am really fearing for how the center is going to look with only 3/4 sides filled with things.
I truly wish this would have been the center of World Nature with a walkway around it, showing key parts of the attraction - where you could enter it from either side (much like the set up of the Communicore showcases). Then, have something proper in position 4/4 in the center. It just feels like it was designed by someone who hadn't ever been in the park and plunked down on a site map.
Click to expand...
this exactly....saw it today and all of us in our group said this looks like animal kingdom...Disney has simply lost it.
 
KeithVH

KeithVH

Well-Known Member
TP2000 said:
I am baffled at the need (or is it just a TDO bureaucratic want?) for all of this safety warning signage for this.

At the entrance there are four (4!) different shapes and sizes of signs that have different and sometimes duplicate warnings and instructions on them. Why? Then they staff all the signage with an immersive hostess from Moana's kingdom to speak to you about all the signage surrounding her.

View attachment 745533

But my goodness, it's that big sign behind the hostess podium that really takes the cake. "Magical", it is certainly not. :eek:

Any Disney attraction with warnings about "DIARRHEA" and "SWIM DIAPERS" and "BATHING LOADS" needs a rethink, in my opinion. (What the heck is a "bathing load"?) It's almost too bad they couldn't get Imodium as a corporate sponsor.

View attachment 745535
Click to expand...

They need to say "Interactive Water Feature" at least one more time. Maybe preferably twice in the same sentence as above.

Then again, considering how well EVERYONE obeys rules, the last three bullets make me question ever wanting to step foot near the place . . .
 
Epcot82Guy

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
Huh. Have they in the past mentioned that Future World looked like Tomorrowland?
Click to expand...

That's not a fair comparison. Saying Adventureland looks like Animal Kingdom would be the better comparison.

Tomorrowland and Future World absolutely looked similar. That was actually a driver for the 90s redo, so they each had a different identity. Part of why Disney didn't expand the Outpost itself was because of Africa in DAK.

The lands of each park having a clear identity used to be a main design focus for WDI and management. There was overlap, but in places it made sense. Blurring the lines to drive inclusion of popular franchises would have been a tough sell until that started to erode under Iger. Yes, we had Splash, Star Tours at DL, etc. under Eisener. But, this is a whole new level.

And, I will say, I think there was a way this exact attraction could have been done to integrate quite well into World Nature They just aren't choosing to care any longer.
 
seabreezept813

seabreezept813

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
It being one of the newest attractions is essentially irrelevant now, though. It's really no longer new enough to be getting a boost solely from newness; it's been open for over 6 years. It's not like Nemo and Gran Fiesta Tour were the busiest attractions at EPCOT before Frozen Ever After opened.

Any personal feelings aside, it has to be relatively well liked to get those waits over everything else at the park (including Flight of Passage at times) at this point. If people thought it was bad/didn't like it, they certainly wouldn't queue for an hour to ride it, considering they don't do that for other attractions at the park.

I'm personally glad it gets the waits (although it would be better if they were shorter for multiple reasons), since it's an excellent C ticket. It's not better than Expedition Everest (and certainly not better than the Safari), but it would be nice if Disney would take lessons from it on how to design future attractions. Despite its flaws, it does the fundamentals better than nearly everything else they've built since it opened and it probably has the best use of screens/projections of any attraction at WDW except maybe Rise.

All that said, I think the strongest counter argument is that it's one of the only rides at the park with no height requirement.
Click to expand...
I’m sure height requirement is huge. We love it because we like a boat ride but mostly because we can all ride it. I travel with the under 5 set and we do the parks in order of most difficulty/least amount to do for little kids to best access for kids. We’ve always done HS and AK early so our kids get used to sitting out stuff, then Epcot and MK feel like a treat. Once my toddler can go on the Star Wars rides, animal kingdom will be ranked hardest park to enjoy as a family.
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Epcot82Guy said:
That's not a fair comparison. Saying Adventureland looks like Animal Kingdom would be the better comparison.

Tomorrowland and Future World absolutely looked similar. That was actually a driver for the 90s redo, so they each had a different identity. Part of why Disney didn't expand the Outpost itself was because of Africa in DAK.

The lands of each park having a clear identity used to be a main design focus for WDI and management. There was overlap, but in places it made sense. Blurring the lines to drive inclusion of popular franchises would have been a tough sell until that started to erode under Iger. Yes, we had Splash, Star Tours at DL, etc. under Eisener. But, this is a whole new level.

And, I will say, I think there was a way this exact attraction could have been done to integrate quite well into World Nature They just aren't choosing to care any longer.
Click to expand...
The attraction does integrate well into world nature and EPCOT as a whole.
 
J

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
Epcot82Guy said:
That's not a fair comparison. Saying Adventureland looks like Animal Kingdom would be the better comparison.

Tomorrowland and Future World absolutely looked similar. That was actually a driver for the 90s redo, so they each had a different identity. Part of why Disney didn't expand the Outpost itself was because of Africa in DAK.

The lands of each park having a clear identity used to be a main design focus for WDI and management. There was overlap, but in places it made sense. Blurring the lines to drive inclusion of popular franchises would have been a tough sell until that started to erode under Iger. Yes, we had Splash, Star Tours at DL, etc. under Eisener. But, this is a whole new level.

And, I will say, I think there was a way this exact attraction could have been done to integrate quite well into World Nature They just aren't choosing to care any longer.
Click to expand...
You're picking and choosing comparisons that are to your advantage and ascribing intention to decisions when the goal was likely more about reinvigoration than differentiation. Tomorrowland and Future World are a fair comparison, as are Liberty Square and American Adventure, for instance. The idea here seems to have been to make the attraction look like a natural oasis, which means it could fit well in Animal Kingdom, but it could also fit literally anywhere they want to have a natural look.
 
Epcot82Guy

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
peter11435 said:
The attraction does integrate well into world nature and EPCOT as a whole.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that opinion and can understand it. Many others disagree. It fits better than I feared it would, shaking personally. But, I think it's tough to argue that it couldn't have been integrated more effectively than it was.
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
aladdin2007 said:
this exactly....saw it today and all of us in our group said this looks like animal kingdom...Disney has simply lost it.
Click to expand...
Or you just don’t understand theme and setting.

Does the landscaping around the Mexico pavilion look like animal kingdom to you too?

Just because the setting and aesthetics match those you are familiar with at animal kingdom does not mean it would be a good thematic fit for the park.
 
aladdin2007

aladdin2007

Well-Known Member
peter11435 said:
Or you just don’t understand theme and setting.

Does the landscaping around the Mexico pavilion look like animal kingdom to you too?

Just because the setting and aesthetics match those you are familiar with at animal kingdom does not mean it would be a good thematic fit for the park.
Click to expand...
It was simply our opinion, no reason to lash out. And yes thanks I do understand theme and setting. Im not the only one who has made that statement so if you want to continue to argue it out fine. Plenty do not agree with it being plopped in the middle of Epcot, that's all there is to it.
 
Bocabear

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
peter11435 said:
Or you just don’t understand theme and setting.

Does the landscaping around the Mexico pavilion look like animal kingdom to you too?

Just because the setting and aesthetics match those you are familiar with at animal kingdom does not mean it would be a good thematic fit for the park.
Click to expand...
Yikes!
I would say those making the choice to create a Polynesian themed splash area and exhibit might not understand the theme and feel of the front half of this park...not someone noticing it does not fit.
Yes, the Mexico pavilion has a tropical pre-Colombian style that would also be able to feel at home in the Animal Kingdom, but within the context of the World Showcase it is easily understood as evocative of a certain region and part of the "Story". None of the pavilions within World Showcase have to match the feel of the neighboring pavilion... But within the front half of the park this particular area sticks out like a sore thumb... Unless the rest of World Nature suddenly becomes a vast expanse of rock work and tropical vegetation, this area will continue to feel at odds...
Like it or not, when you plop something down that doesn't relate to anything around it, it will be noticed... A modernist Super Hero tower in the middle of the Animal Kingdom would look and feel out of place too...even though we may want Marvel Super Heroes... doesn't mean that it is a good fit for the area...
 
Incomudro

Incomudro

Well-Known Member
I certainly see what others see when they mention a resemblance to Animal Kingdom, or even parts of Adventureland.
I disagree however with JoW being any kind of thematic clash with with Epcot.
I haven't been there yet, but I really welcome the idea that JoW is a place you can enter that is a natural respite from the areas near it.
I love the images where you can see Spaceship Earth from within the walkways.
And as I've said before - from the outside - it's just plantings.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom