Journey of Water featuring Moana coming to Epcot

[GladToBeHear]

When I talk to people that don't like Epcot -- or regularly leave it off their itineraries -- it's almost always the same reason. "There's not much to do there." And they're not talking about water features, flexible event spaces, nice places to sit, or landscaping.

 

[James Alucobond]

And they're not talking about water features, flexible event spaces, nice places to sit, or landscaping.

I think the point of some of the others is that they're not talking about another theater or meet-and-greets either.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Le Corbusier pushed this idea 100 years ago. It’s been tried and it never really catches on because they’re not really welcoming spaces. It’s also something that would have been offered by CommuniCore West staying with the addition of air conditioning. What you and so many others seem to miss is that all of these things you say you don’t like or have no interest are/were the plan you find so interesting.

A festival center should be flexible so that it’s offerings can change with each festival. So we’re right back to something somehow being bad because it is offered to more people and easier to accomplish but good because it is offered to fewer people and more difficult to accomplish.

I feel like we're going down a bit of a rabbit hole speculating about a building for which we just seen some concept art and models and doesn't seem to be getting built anyway.

All I will say is that I don't know what the difference was in terms of the capacity of the festival center versus what was proposed for the reworked Communicore building nor how either compared to what they feel they need. Nor do I know whether it would really have been that challenging to install exhibits for each festival. I'm not sure either of us do.

In theory, though, I don't think it is out of the question to sacrifice some flexibility for other qualities, such as visual interest, allowing greater guest circulation around the exhibition space, and an improved experience for guests who would now have an elevated view over Epcot rather than being in an enclosed, ground-level exhibition center. The Communicore buildings are not particularly elegant structures and Epcot is a theme park, not a convention center. So, aesthetics and guest experience will logically win out over pure functionality sometimes.

For reference, Martin has explained all the challenges involved in refurbishing Spaceship Earth because they chose to build it inside the park icon. I don't think that necessarily means it was a mistake and they should have build it in a ground-level building behind the icon to make refurbs and updates more practical, however.

Would you argue that it in any way makes sense to demolish the Stitch theater building in Tomorrowland to make room for a smaller, single theater? Would you say such a plan makes sense as a way to add capacity?

It's hard to evaluate a proposal that doesn't exist. All I can say is that I don't think the Stitch Theatre needs to be preserved in any future plans for Tomorrowland if they don't feel a theatre of that size or design is needed anymore. If the theatre is going to be half empty or closed a lot of the time, maybe it would make sense to have a smaller structure and more open space accessible to guests.

The Communicore proposal seems analogous to a team being given hundreds of millions of dollars to reimagine Tomorrowland and coming up with plans for a new show in the Stitch theatre and another for the MILF theatre. Not insane or necessarily bad, but also not a particularly imaginative solution for what to do with the space.

I think the point of some of the others is that they're not talking about another theater or meet-and-greets either.

Precisely! That's all anyone was saying.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I suspect though that WDI set out to design a pleasant landscaping and water feature leading to the Seas. That itself was the goal and they probably decided to do that then gave it a Moana theme (as per IP mandates). I think that someone looked at FW and felt it needed more outdoor natural lush features - we can argue whether that was a good conclusion but I can at least understand that motivation.

IOW I don’t think they set out to specifically build a Moana attraction and settled on this idea/location rather than a dark ride or roller coaster in Adventureland or whatever.

Just like they never intended to build a Rapunzel bathroom versus and attraction They needed more bathrooms and slap Rapunzel on it

True as I believe these statements are, they speak to a fault in the contemporary Disney design process.

Moana and Rapunzel are both significant features in the newer Disney Animation catalogue. It's a squandering of the film's potential, a disservice to the guests who love them, and even a missed financial opportunity when Disney takes this backwards-facing approach to conceptual design. No reasonable guest sees Rapunzel's Tower down the Fantasyland West Corridor and assumes that must be the RESTROOM.

You only arrive at that conclusion when working in the direction described above - we have a very basic need in the park that must be filled, let's do a slightly nicer version of it, and we'll slap a popular character on it for extra sizzle. But guests don't percieve the parks that way - the sizzle fizzles when you realize guests see it the entirely opposite direction. "Hey look, Rapunzel's Tower! Rapunzel must be there! Rapunzel's our FAVORITE, let's go! Wait . . . it's . . . Toilets??"

Of course, take a poll and basically anyone would say that a Rapunzel-themed restroom would probably be better than a "generic" restroom . . . but that's not the question in the guest's mind when they encounter these things in person. If you see Moana on the sign you're gonna get excited for Moana. Guests aren't gonna look and say "compared to the non-IP-branded landscaping/water feature/splash zone(?) area they COULD have built, it's nice that they added Moana on top!", they're gonna say "Wait, I was promised Moana, and THIS is all I got??"

This is one of the big areas that WDI seems to have been struggling with in the last decade+ - setting guest expectations. They have to manage the hierarchy of visual cues. Compare these two photos - at first glance, which one looks more like the entrace to an actual ride vs. the entrance to a more basic facility?:

I couldn't even find a decent Nighttime shot of Peter Pan's Flight, which maybe suggests something about how much visual draw the building has. Meanwhile there are literally hundreds of the restroom next door. With its dramatic lighting, glowing lanterns, and literal Tower it practically begs for your attention at night. Yet it heralds no meaningful experience once you arrive.

All this to say, if Disney's thought process around Journey of Water was that they wanted to heighten the impact of the landscaping around Future World, and even go so far with is as to consider it an attraction, they should be free and even encouraged to do that. BUT, they should exercise better judgment than to tack SUCH a hugely popular character onto it, since associating it with that character will alter the guest's perception of the level of the experience. People will expect more from Moana. Journey of Water might be its own pleasant surprise for the guests that way, instead of likely feeling like a throwaway use of a popular princess.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I think I would honestly be frustrated if I told WDI to dream big about Epcot and was pitched more meet and greets, food and beverage, exhibition space, and a theatre for a big building in the center of the park that already had meet and greets, food and beverage, and a large exhibition space that is mostly sitting unused.

That’s not much different than what is coming, except smaller and less flexible.

^Not to mention more expensive, and throttling the central throughway of the park for several years while they build it.

 

[GladToBeHear]

I think the point of some of the others is that they're not talking about another theater or meet-and-greets either.

Correctomundo.

 

[DisneyGentlemanV2.0]

....

This is one of the big areas that WDI seems to have been struggling with in the last decade+ - setting guest expectations. They have to manage the hierarchy of visual cues. Compare these two photos - at first glance, which one looks more like the entrace to an actual ride vs. the entrance to a more basic facility?:

View attachment 568049

View attachment 568051

...

Don't give them any ideas or they will start referring to "restrooms" as "attractions".

 

[lazyboy97o]

All I will say is that I don't know what the difference was in terms of the capacity of the festival center versus what was proposed for the reworked Communicore building nor how either compared to what they feel they need. Nor do I know whether it would really have been that challenging to install exhibits for each festival. I'm not sure either of us do.

You can’t look at a clearly smaller building and realize that it will fit fewer people inside? You can’t know that having to fit materials into a service elevator is more difficult than just walking through a wide open doorway?

For reference, Martin has explained all the challenges involved in refurbishing Spaceship Earth because they chose to build it inside the park icon. I don't think that necessarily means it was a mistake and they should have build it in a ground-level building behind the icon to make refurbs and updates more practical, however.

A ride isn’t the same as a space that is supposed to be hosting new content every few months.

The Communicore proposal seems analogous to a team being given hundreds of millions of dollars to reimagine Tomorrowland and coming up with plans for a new show in the Stitch theatre and another for the MILF theatre. Not insane or necessarily bad, but also not a particularly imaginative solution for what to do with the space.

What you are praising and saying makes sense is the equivalent of tearing down the Stitch and Laugh Floor theaters to be replaced by a smaller Laugh Floor theater.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

You can’t look at a clearly smaller building and realize that it will fit fewer people inside? You can’t know that having to fit materials into a service elevator is more difficult than just walking through a wide open doorway?

I can't eyeball concept art of a building and compare the square footage for exhibition space contained within it to that available in a reworked building I haven't seen any plans for nor to estimations of required exhibition space that I also haven't seen, no. I imagine it fits less people than the exhibition space in the Communicore building would, but the issue is more whether that is a problem. Capacity in the abstract doesn't serve much of a purpose if no-one is using it.

I also imagine it is more complicated to load displays, etc. in a service elevator than just taking them in through a service entrance at ground level. As I said, that was a trade-off which may or may not have been worth it for what they felt they were getting with an elevated exhibition space with views over the park. I will say, though, that not all exhibition space is located at ground level and I'm not sure it's that complicated to use a service elevator for these festival displays.

Again, though, I think I'm being drawn down this rabbit hole of defending a building that none of us know that much about and to which I am pretty indifferent.

What you are praising and saying makes sense is the equivalent of tearing down the Stitch and Laugh Floor theaters to be replaced by a smaller Laugh Floor theater.

I am not praising anything. Just saying the alternative proposal sounds fairly uninspiring and, in that context, I understand why they went with the one they did.

 

[PrinceCharming617]

Moana would agree, this doesn't belong in the park. ... Heck even that dumb rooster would agree.

 

[Mac Tonight]

All this talk of water has me thirsty. I think I'll crack open a Zach Riddley special.

 

[HauntedPirate]

All this talk of water has me thirsty. I think I'll crack open a Zach Riddley special.


View attachment 570210

Make sure you’re wearing your retro reprint Epcot Center t-shirt while you drink it, with your retro poster hanging in the background. Nothing says “authentic” like reprints with current park naming on it.

 

[DCBaker]

 

[marni1971]

Kudos for rebuilding a stairwell that was built in 1982. Down to the curved wall.

 

[PrinceCharming617]

All this talk of water has me thirsty. I think I'll crack open a Zach Riddley special.


View attachment 570210

I heard Starlord drank one when he was a kid. So Guardians fits with the drink's theming.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I heard Starlord drank one when he was a kid. So Guardians fits with the drink's theming.

Exactly. That's also why Groot will appear in the Journey of Water as a meet and greet.

 

[wedenterprises]

You only arrive at that conclusion when working in the direction described above - we have a very basic need in the park that must be filled, let's do a slightly nicer version of it, and we'll slap a popular character on it for extra sizzle. But guests don't percieve the parks that way - the sizzle fizzles when you realize guests see it the entirely opposite direction. "Hey look, Rapunzel's Tower! Rapunzel must be there! Rapunzel's our FAVORITE, let's go! Wait . . . it's . . . Toilets??"

There's that meme about how hard Phil Collins went on the Tarzan soundtrack... that's how I feel about the Rapunzel washrooms. It's honestly one of my favourite designed spaces in all of WDW, but someone at WDI went wayyyyyyy too hard.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

There's that meme about how hard Phil Collins went on the Tarzan soundtrack... that's how I feel about the Rapunzel washrooms. It's honestly one of my favourite designed spaces in all of WDW, but someone at WDI went wayyyyyyy too hard.

Ha! That's funny - Phil Collins really did write that music like he was aiming for extra credit.

The difference here, though, is overdelivering vs underdelivering, which is ultimately born out of how expectations are set.

Part of the job of an Animated Feature Film is to endear itself to your hearts. They paid Phil Collins the big bucks to make something that would make people remember that movie, because audiences expect a full-length Disney animation to offer at least some memorable songs. We just got lucky that some of the Tarzan songs are not just good, but REALLY good. Disney promises good music and he over-delivered. That's a win-win.

But the situation with the Tangled restroom is different, because the design of the building seems to be masquerading as something else. It looks "too good" for a restroom, to the point where many guests think it's actually gonna be a ride. Then they're disappointed when they get there and it's not. The look of the building over-promises and then the function under-delivers.

If you KNOW they're a restroom when you're walking up to them then that problem doesn't happen, and it's easy to decide that they're "the best restrooms" because they're so extra. But most guests don't know that when they see them for the first time, which leads to disappoinment. It's one thing to do extra, but it's another to do too much. If the design of the building somehow communicated from a distance that what you were walking towards was a bathroom perhaps this wouldn't happen, because you'd know what you're in for. The placement at the end of a busy pathway doesn't help either, because that's exactly where you'd place an important thing relative to the buildings around it.

I'm all for Disney doing great theming for things as basic as restrooms, but the hierarchy of information needs to be kept in mind. The Tangled Restrooms have a more exciting facade than Peter Pan's Flight. They look more like a ride than an ACTUAL ride! That means the balance is off.

 

[DisneyGentlemanV2.0]

Ha! That's funny - Phil Collins really did write that music like he was aiming for extra credit.

The difference here, though, is overdelivering vs underdelivering, which is ultimately born out of how expectations are set.

Part of the job of an Animated Feature Film is to endear itself to your hearts. They paid Phil Collins the big bucks to make something that would make people remember that movie, because audiences expect a full-length Disney animation to offer at least some memorable songs. We just got lucky that some of the Tarzan songs are not just good, but REALLY good. Disney promises good music and he over-delivered. That's a win-win.

But the situation with the Tangled restroom is different, because the design of the building seems to be masquerading as something else. It looks "too good" for a restroom, to the point where many guests think it's actually gonna be a ride. Then they're disappointed when they get there and it's not. The look of the building over-promises and then the function under-delivers.

If you KNOW they're a restroom when you're walking up to them then that problem doesn't happen, and it's easy to decide that they're "the best restrooms" because they're so extra. But most guests don't know that when they see them for the first time, which leads to disappoinment. It's one thing to do extra, but it's another to do too much. If the design of the building somehow communicated from a distance that what you were walking towards was a bathroom perhaps this wouldn't happen, because you'd know what you're in for. The placement at the end of a busy pathway doesn't help either, because that's exactly where you'd place an important thing relative to the buildings around it.

I'm all for Disney doing great theming for things as basic as restrooms, but the hierarchy of information needs to be kept in mind. The Tangled Restrooms have a more exciting facade than Peter Pan's Flight. They look more like a ride than an ACTUAL ride! That means the balance is off.

Given the characteristics of Disney food, my trips to those restrooms is every bit a themed adventure …

 

[Lee]

He doesn't post much anymore. At least as @Lee