Nemo ruined it! Bring back hydrolators!

[FigmentJedi]

Does it make sense for the future of a park to be dismal simply because there's some unwritten rule that characters can't be used? The introduction of characters (other than DF/Figment which apparently are excused... for whatever reason) have been met with derision by some, but yet that introduction was the beginning and a catalyst of the renewal of Epcot.

Dreamfinder and Figment are exempt from people's because they are theme park exclusive, not doing anything outside of Epcot beyond a few obscure educational shorts and a scarcely seen TV show that lasted only two episodes.
It's when we find *gasp* Disney movie characters *gasp* in the parks that the crazed purists start wanting to bust some heads at management and complain about everything and not ever think that bringing characters in Epcot could actually be beneficial to the park by making the messages in the attractions more accessable to the guests who don't like to learn or are completely stupid.

 

[wannab@dis]

Dreamfinder and Figment are exempt from people's because they are theme park exclusive, not doing anything outside of Epcot beyond a few obscure educational shorts and a scarcely seen TV show that lasted only two episodes.
It's when we find *gasp* Disney movie characters *gasp* in the parks that the crazed purists start wanting to bust some heads at management and complain about everything and not ever think that bringing characters in Epcot could actually be beneficial to the park by making the messages in the attractions more accessable to the guests who don't like to learn or are completely stupid.

I was with you right up until the last part... maybe they aren't stupid and they don't mind learning, but they are simply looking to be entertained while at a theme park created by an entertainment company.

 

[Lewis Carroll]

Why does it bother you that Disney is using a Disney character in a Disney park? I don't get the logic. The Disney parks were built with heavy character integration from the very beginning. Why is it OK for characters to be in MK, but not in Epcot?

The Disney parks were not built with any such "heavy integration". The main Disney charecters (mickey, minnie, donald, etc.) would walk around the park because they were sort of "Disney ambassadors" that the general public EXPECTED to see at Disneyland. Walt Disney created Fantasyland as the place for animated CLASSICS (im talking real epic fairy tale such as Snow white and cool obscure animated charecters like Mr.Toad) to have attractions. I know your going to come back and say something incredibly absurd like "Jungle Cruise is based on African Queen" or that "Adventureland is based on True Life" which is untrue. There were many inspirations and influences, they were not designed to be tie-ins.

Up until the 1990's movie tie-in's were thought true and carefully put in places that they TRUELY made sense. The Swiss Family Treehouse was not built as an "IN YOUR FACE" tie in to that movie...it doesn't really have that many ties to the movie either and it fits perfectly in the adventureland theme. Likewise: Star Tours fits perfectly in both Tomorrowland and MGM Studios, Indiana Jones Adventure makes perfect sense in Adventureland, and Roger Rabit is a natural fit for toontown. These movie tie-ins make sense and were not built on the cheap. They can stand on their own legs as worthy attractions in the Disney pantheon and are not cheap overlays and were not built just to sell more merchandise. In short, they were built straight from the heart and imagination of the imagineers.

Finding Nemo on the other hand, is all about the marketing. I can just imagine the WDI board meeting:

Imagineers: "We feel it is time to update the Living Seas pavillion because it has gotten stale..and we have several exciting ideas for i-"

Management: "Living Seas? hmm...it has fish maybe we can tie it into finding nemo...push some more nemo merchandise!"

Imagineers: "Well we have several original conce-"

Management: "ORIGINAL? These aren't the japenese! Our demographics tell us that american audiances only want to see charecters they already have a close association with prior to entering our parks! and since Pixar movies are so beloved by audiances, we of course have no idea why, but we are just going to do what we do and market their product by tieing it into the sea world"

Imagineers: "Actually its "The Living Seas" sir"

Management: "whatever"

Imagineers:

Management: "So its settled then...be sure to send the memo to the marketing department they will be sure to get to work on an advertising campaign...be sure to listen to everything they say!"

 

[mousermerf]

But....

On the other hand... although it's a rehab to the pavillion, and everyone is hyping... and filled with joy... it still worries me to see that there are more and more Pixar figures in a park which wasn't meant for it...
I've said it before, and I say it again... these are dangerous developments...
One just can't insert a Pixar figure in every ride or pavillion... and in this case I think it's bad for the park, but not for the merchandise...

But I still think it's a bad idea... a Pixar figure in Toon town... no problem... Pixr in MK... no problem, even Pixar in MGM... but trying to make an extra buck by putting Nemo in DAK or EPCOT... is a desperate move... and therefore not too well chosen...


Thanks!

Two things...

Epcot's decision to go without characters was a gamble that was lost years ago. Pixar is Disney now wether you want to accept it or not. For reference, see the Today show on Epcot's opening day for archival references to Epcot's big gmbles on going characterless - then you can just watch for Mickey and friend to appear for that to be taken back.

Second, you cannot ever say what Epcot is meant for. Epcot is not meant to be permanent - it is to constantly change and be replaced. See Spaceship Earths dedication for reference and Epcot's conceptual statements.

 

[Lewis Carroll]

Two things...

Epcot's decision to go without characters was a gamble that was lost years ago. Pixar is Disney now wether you want to accept it or not. For reference, see the Today show on Epcot's opening day for archival references to Epcot's big gmbles on going characterless - then you can just watch for Mickey and friend to appear for that to be taken back.

Second, you cannot ever say what Epcot is meant for. Epcot is not meant to be permanent - it is to constantly change and be replaced. See Spaceship Earths dedication for reference and Epcot's conceptual statements.

Why do you and like 10 other people keep trying to defend every bad decision Disney makes? Yes Change is necessary and Disney parks constantly have to IMPROVE...however that does not mean you replace memorable attractions with $h!t!

 

[wannab@dis]

Finding Nemo on the other hand, is all about the marketing. I can just imagine the WDI board meeting:

Yeah, I'm sure it went that way...

It appears that attractions with character/movie/television tie-ins that you like are ok... but if you don't care for some aspect, then it's considered a horrible event and a failure. Gotcha.

 

[wannab@dis]

Why do you and like 10 other people keep trying to defend every bad decision Disney makes? Yes Change is necessary and Disney parks constantly have to IMPROVE...however that does not mean you replace memorable attractions with $h!t!

Actually... it's the other way around. If only 10 people thought the characters were a good idea, there would be no characters. However, the MAJORITY of guests wanted characters and that's why they are now in the parks. It apparent the ones upset about the characters in the park is the vast minority.

Oh... keep it clean.

 

[ZambeziZelda]

Why do you and like 10 other people keep trying to defend every bad decision Disney makes? Yes Change is necessary and Disney parks constantly have to IMPROVE...however that does not mean you replace memorable attractions with $h!t!

I think it's a few more than 10 people, hun. I happen to agree with Merf, as do many, many people on this site. The fact of the matter is, The Living Seas was a dying pavillion. Nemo and his buddies gave it a breath of fresh air (so to speak...) and now it's one of the most popular areas in all of Epcot. Trust me, I would know, I've had to take the trash out there before...

 

[mousermerf]

Why do you and like 10 other people keep trying to defend every bad decision Disney makes? Yes Change is necessary and Disney parks constantly have to IMPROVE...however that does not mean you replace memorable attractions with $h!t!

You've got things a little backwards.. LS became crap.. was replaced with a memorable attraction.

Epcot center opening day - btw- Dreamfinder himself says he is no different than Mickey and friends and is there to remind people that they need the softer side and the art world in contrast to future world's coldness.

 

[S.E.A.]

it's rather hilarious reading all the EPCOT purists try to defend themselves by saying "Characters are bad for epcot!" when in reality, it's the characters that are slowly turning what is essentially the most boring park in all of WDW into the most interesting one.

it's hilarious how they call the amazing new attractions crap and all want to keep the really tired old ones whose only real reason why they were memorable in the first place was because they were the only ones there.

 

[flagen]

Yeah this is like the people that NEVER been to Space Mountain in DL ...that cry and moan...."leave WDW Space mountain alone When i was 14 years old it was my fav ride" blah blah blah....Im a big time WDW and DL fan...and things need to change. Some people do not want to come to the park every year for 10-15 years and still see the same ol same ol.....

Yes I know many have old memories and such. But now is the time for new memories. Now not all the new ones will be good example WDW Tiki Room (shouting birds sigh) vs DL (singing happy birds :sohappy ...

I hope WDW, Epcot, DL all change as often as they can and when things get slow spice them up...So when Im 50 (37 now) I can still be excited when i see new things not the same thing for the 30th time:hammer:

 

[haveyoumetmark]

it's rather hilarious reading all the EPCOT purists try to defend themselves by saying "Characters are bad for epcot!" when in reality, it's the characters that are slowly turning what is essentially the most boring park in all of WDW into the most interesting one.

it's hilarious how they call the amazing new attractions crap and all want to keep the really tired old ones whose only real reason why they were memorable in the first place was because they were the only ones there.

I have not yet ridden the new Nemo ride... However, I think Epcot is the most intriguing park with or without Nemo, and I am no "EPCOT purist" as I love the Epcot that exists today and epcot in general, but I think that the 1982 one wasn't that great. So...

Please stop trying to make your opinions sound like facts.

Have a magical day! :wave:

 

[S.E.A.]

I have not yet ridden the new Nemo ride... However, I think Epcot is the most intriguing park with or without Nemo, and I am no "EPCOT purist" as I love the Epcot that exists today and epcot in general, but I think that the 1989 one wasn't that great. So...

Please stop trying to make your opinions sound like facts.

Have a magical day! :wave:

don't blame me for how you understand what I say.

 

[Madison]

it's rather hilarious reading all the EPCOT purists try to defend themselves by saying "Characters are bad for epcot!" when in reality, it's the characters that are slowly turning what is essentially the most boring park in all of WDW into the most interesting one.

it's hilarious how they call the amazing new attractions crap and all want to keep the really tired old ones whose only real reason why they were memorable in the first place was because they were the only ones there.

The very notion that Epcot is a boring park is symptomatic of a larger problem, but I've mentioned that before and it seems that nobody is really interested in that discussion. I don't pretend that my feelings about what's happening to the park are in the Company's best interest or that they'd even work in the short- or long-term; only that I'd like to see the park flourish as it once did with its focus squarely and unwaveringly on education by way of a little entertainment. It seems to me and to others that the balance has shifted in that equation and that, as attractions such as this open, they're making Epcot a bit more like the Magic Kingdom. They're making Epcot -- the concept -- obsolete.

The Living Seas was a miserable pavilion in its original form. It relied too heavily on a guests motivation to learn to make itself useful. The Seacabs attraction offered just a glance into a very large aquarium, but didn't have any of the whimsy or weight carried by its neighbors. In The Land, agriculture is introduced first by show scenes and in Spaceship Earth, Horizons and even World of Motion, there was a show scene that was monumental and awe-inspiring.

The Nemo characters offer the perfect opportunity to use whimsy to introduce science. There was some great potential to use the characters and the story arc we all know from the film to introduce more to the audience; to pose questions beyond "Where's Nemo?" From what I've seen, it doesn't do that or even strive for it. It's satisfied to be a retelling of the movie and dump folks into the same pavilion that they visited in 1986. Maybe that makes the pavilion more popular than ever before, but only a look at how many more people the pavilion retains for some amount of time can really show if the new attraction is helping to educate more people. But again, maybe Epcot's not about that anymore and maybe that dream really is dead. Maybe all that really matters these days is getting people back through the turnstiles one more time for another chance at hearing a bad song sung by animated fish.

Were this attraction opened in the Magic Kingdom or even the Disney Studios, it'd undoubtedly be a success, both in attracting visitors and meeting the expectation set by the park; but in Epcot, when considering the original expectation set by the park, it seems to me that's a failure.

But I'm just a crazy purist or something with a passion for teaching the kids in this country that there's more to life than sports, video games and movies; that they can have fun, challenge themselves and make the world a better place to live -- all the while doing something that ought to be educational and boring.

 

[socalkdg]

But I'm just a crazy purist or something with a passion for teaching the kids in this country that there's more to life than sports, video games and movies; that they can have fun, challenge themselves and make the world a better place to live -- all the while doing something that ought to be educational and boring.

There is nothing wrong with this. Take your kids, teach them. Hopefully other parents will do so as well. Maybe even the parents will learn something. There is more than enough things offered by Disney that allow all of us to do this.

We just shouldn't expect a company like Disney to do it all for us. Give some entertainment and education, then let each person decide how much of each they want on a specific trip.

 

[ZambeziZelda]

There is nothing wrong with this. Take your kids, teach them. Hopefully other parents will do so as well. Maybe even the parents will learn something. There is more than enough things offered by Disney that allow all of us to do this.

We just shouldn't expect a company like Disney to do it all for us. Give some entertainment and education, then let each person decide how much of each they want on a specific trip.

I sat down for 20 minutes trying to type out the reply you just gave. Thank you!! :sohappy:

 

[haveyoumetmark]

don't blame me for how you understand what I say.

I didn't blame you for how I understood something. I politely asked you to refrain from saying something the way you said it. The only thing I might have inadvertently blamed you for would be trying. Maybe you said it the way you did unintentionally. In that case, my apologies. Oh, and sorry for being so critical.

 

[Madison]

There is nothing wrong with this. Take your kids, teach them. Hopefully other parents will do so as well. Maybe even the parents will learn something. There is more than enough things offered by Disney that allow all of us to do this.

We just shouldn't expect a company like Disney to do it all for us. Give some entertainment and education, then let each person decide how much of each they want on a specific trip.

I don't have kids of my own. I volunteer with an organization called FIRST (www.usfirst.org) that does everything it can to inspire middle and high school students to become engaged in meaningful careers. The organization exists precisely because of what I've mentioned above -- a cultural shift away from recognizing the importance of academia and its role in improving our lives.

I understand that Disney does what it can to cater to everyone, but again it's this paradigm shift that has the company shying away from and, in the case of Epcot particularly, taking away opportunities for education. Nemo is generally less offensive in this regard than other changes, as the majority of the pavilion remained intact. With Test Track, however, or Mission: SPACE, nearly nothing educational remains of what were once fantastic, engaging attractions that taught and told a story simultaneously.

These changes represent a reaction on Disney's behalf to the changing desires of its guests, of course, but it used to be that the company defined what people expect of an experience rather than struggling to keep up with someone else's definition of what's fun, cool or worthwhile. The philosophy that informed the decision to make these sorts of changes is the same philosophy that would never allow for programs like the True Life Adventures to be made today. That Disney is long ago gone and I guess I'm mourning its loss as bits and pieces of it disappear to make way for the latest, greatest characters, technologies and plush toys.

 

[bayoutinkbelle]

I'm not even stepping into this conversation. I love Epcot. I'll probably spend more time there than any other park. I can't wait to try out the new attraction next week.

But what really drew me into this thread was this ...

Wow, Dr Albert Falls, great post... However, you may want to take a cue from FARK.com forums, and.... make it a little obvious... perhaps with a sarcasm slashie?

It looks like this... /sarcarsm

A farker? On this board? Excellent!

 

[disneylandkid]

QUOTEThe point is, EPCOT should be a place where people can sit on a bench and watch a documentary. That's what Walt intended.QUOTE

dude, don't you realize that walt didn't even want EPCOT to be a theme park?

so he wouldn't have wanted a simple documentary and that is it. He was always plussing ideas. Walt wanted EPCOT to be a city and don't believe his plans for said city included a bench to watch documentaries.