Nemo ruined it! Bring back hydrolators!

[v_misses_epcot]

I seriously don't understand why everyone is fighting over LS when we all know that INNOVENTIONS ROCKS EVERYONES SOCKS!! lol I'm not saying that because I work there really, I'm not. XD!

I think all of epcot is popular and I don't think that LS is one of the more popular rides considering that living seas still has 20 minute crush shows and soarin still has 2 hour waits now. =/ Can we stop the bickering please?

One thing is for sure, all of this bickering is NOT going to bring back the old epcot or is going to fix the new epcot. While we miss the old one, I don't think we can really do anything about it but well, complain since I doubt that anyone will be making changes to EPCOT anytime soon.

To me these two Disney Quotes will always be important to me dealing with EPCOT and while it's not "classic epcot" I'm glad I still work here. Everyday while working at TIPBOARD, I can't help but get excited everytime I hear the fountain music or see a toddler wobble over to mickey for the first time or see spaceship earth shine so bright that I have to put sunglasses on. I love the surroundings while I work here. While I work, I'm not thinking of "oh, I wish the old rides were back" Sure!! I regret being born in 81 when dealing with Disney. I didn't even come to disney as a child due to the selfishness of my parents. I never saw Mr. Toads Wild Ride, Horizons, World of Motion or Communicore!! That makes me really sad!! But I have to tell myself TOUGH COOKIES!! Unless we all build a time machine and go back in time, "Classic Epcot" will forever be inside our minds and hearts.

SO STOP YOUR B&^%&^%&ING =D It's not going to solve anything.


EPCOT will be an experimental prototype community of tomorrow that will take its cue from the new ideas and new technologies that are now emerging from the creative centers of American industry. It will be a community of tomorrow that will never be completed, but will always be introducing and testing and demonstrating new materials and systems. And EPCOT will always be a showcase to the world for the ingenuity and imagination of American free enterprise."

and

"I don't believe there's a challenge anywhere in the world that's more important to people everywhere than finding solutions to the problems of our cities. But where do we begin... how do we start answering this great challenge? Well, we're convinced we must start answering the public need. And the need is for starting from scratch on virgin land and building a special kind of new community that will always be in a state of becoming. It will never cease to be a living blueprint of the future, where people actually live a life they can't find anywhere else in the world."

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

Some people do not want to come to the park every year for 10-15 years and still see the same ol same ol.....

True...but you must remember - some people do. But don't take that the wrong way. I don't think it's so much that we never ever want Disney to change a single detail to anything. We just don't want the feel of Disney to change...unfortunately, it has, and not really for the better. For some of us, Disney has started to feel cheap. Could be that we're getting older...but I tend to think that it's because Imagineering just isn't getting the right amount of funding or creative freedom that it once did. The originality of (not so much the original) Disney parks, and what made them so special to so many of us, is slipping away fairly rapidly. I think that's what we're reacting to - not really the fact of change or including cartoons into an attraction. Change is the only constant. But, as I believe Corrus said, change for the sake of change is not good.

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.

That's what I find, I guess you could say "interesting" about this overlay. It's Nemo in a building that screams "80's". Guess that's why they call it an overlay. But it just doesn't seem to fit together well for me. Maybe they plan on updating the entire pavilion once they see how this overlay works? I dunno. Just seems funny to have this new, bright stuff mixed with obviously faded, old stuff.
And I wonder how long it's going to take Finding Nemo to become outdated? Somehow I don't think it's going to hold up for 20 years. Then again, who knows?

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.

Heh...seems kind of funny that in every debate I've seen in these forums all these years, we "purists", as people like to call us, get blamed for not listening to the other side of things, for trying to make the Disney parks into some kind of museum. And then we get slapped with "bah, you're just a crazy purist". ...anyway....
You keep with that passion! I have the same passion. You know why? Because Disney World, Epcot in particuarly, instilled that in me. I was shown in the parks at a young age that education is constantly surrounding us and that it's actually FUN if it's presented to us in a way we can relate to it. Seems like that mind frame was around in the 1990's, and then it suddenly disappeared. What happened to all the Bill Nye's of the world? Who suddenly said "ok, education and fun can no longer go hand-in-hand."? I dunno.

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.

Exactly. And I think that's why we "purists" (there's that word again) are so vocal these days. We see Disney losing the grip that it held so firmly on the audience and what we enjoy. It seems that Disney was made popular by taking something and showing it to us in a different light. Disney set the standards. Then, all of a sudden, the audience is setting Disney's standards. While listening to guests' needs is important for some aspects, for others, it just doesn't work. Our standards seem to only go so high - basically, it seems we see what the competition has done and that's where our standards stay. Disney, I think, is barely floating above those standards...but only barely. Whereas before, Disney seemed to soar above and beyond what we ever expected. The "purists" see that, and instead of sitting around saying "oh well. that's just how things go. back in my day....." we become vocal. I guess we feel like we're trying to keep the Walt in Walt Disney. Maybe we can't change anything. But at least we can't say that we didn't try a little. You know how they say "if you didn't vote, you can't complain"?....maybe this is our way of "voting".

 

[Main Street USA]

The posts of Diznee Phreek = Borderline genius.

Couldn't have spoken for the "purist" better myself. Thanks.

 

[Shaman]

So lets say Nemo wasn't a movie...and just an original character for a dark ride, like Figment (a dark ride is something that disney fandom has been asking for since I can remember....and we finally have a pretty good one)...how would this change your opinion of the attraction?

I've always liked Epcot...as a kid it was my favorite park. I was against these changes when they were first rumored and subsequently announced (I decided I would give them a chance though). Having seen the first phases of the change (and excited to see this recent phase)...I think they did good (although from the photos I have questioned some design decisions). The pavilion is packed with families LEARNING about aquatic life...Do we remember the days of an empty TLS rideless and dying? What kind of learning was taking place in the pre-show room again? Was learning taking place in the hyrdolators? And did MOST people care about what was in the queue?

I get were the so-called "purists" are coming from...but whether you like it or not PIXAR is Disney...and PIXAR is popular....put a popular character into an informative pavilion (because I believe The Seas is MORE informative and much more entertaining than its former self) and you create interest.

At the end of the day what matters is that people keep coming in through the gates. Without the interest, the people, and their money we would have no Disney.

At the end of the day, we want Disney to succeed don't we?

Just my opinion.

 

[wannab@dis]

They're making Epcot -- the concept -- obsolete.

EPCOT -- the concept -- was built to make money. That's it. There wasn't a huge meeting at WDI with this big idea to change the philosophy of theme parks and to take on the responsibility of educating generations of kids. There was a meeting to find out how to make more money. At that time, passing themselves off as an educator looked promising, so they did it.

That time passed and they now realize that people want entertainment. So they did that.

When this phase passes and they see it's necessary to make changes to stay current and KEEP MAKING MONEY, they will do so.

These grand ideas of EPCOT are just illusions to suck people in, hook them on the park and to keep milking their money from their wallets. It worked for some a little too well. Now they can't get over it and move on.

 

[wannab@dis]

The posts of Madison and Diznee Phreek = Borderline genius.

Couldn't have spoken for the "purist" better myself. Thanks.

There is a thin line between genius and insanity.

:zipit:

 

[Lewis Carroll]

EPCOT -- the concept -- was built to make money. That's it. There wasn't a huge meeting at WDI with this big idea to change the philosophy of theme parks and to take on the responsibility of educating generations of kids. There was a meeting to find out how to make more money. At that time, passing themselves off as an educator looked promising, so they did it.

I don't know what sick parellel dimension your from but WDI DID have meetings to create a unique theme park that educated and entertained guests.

The Disney Company decided that yes it was time for a second park which was obviously to make more money but the actual design and execution was well thought out and had absoluetly nothing to do with money. They could have just made a different version of Magic Kingdom with a bunch of thrill rides and such but the imagineers instead wanted to design a futuristic theme park inspired by the old pavillions of the world's fair. Alot of thought and care went into desingning and building the park. Money had nothing to do with that because they knew a second disney park in florida was going to generate revenue anyway thats why it was pushed forward.

BTW, Wannab@dis, not sure if you keep up with the news but recently at disneyland they tore down the ugly CLUB BUZZ stageshow in tomorrowland and rebuilt the classic rolly crump tomorrowland terrace with a modern design. Thats right THEY BROUGHT BACk an attraction that hasnt existed since 1998. Purists everywhere are thrilled...was the decision to rebuild tomorrowland terrace designed to "MAKEZ MONEY" as you would say or was it restored because it would restore some of the quality and uniqueness to the park that was lost?

 

[Bravesfn1]

BTW, Wannab@dis, not sure if you keep up with the news but recently at disneyland they tore down the ugly CLUB BUZZ stageshow in tomorrowland and rebuilt the classic rolly crump tomorrowland terrace with a modern design. Thats right THEY BROUGHT BACk an attraction that hasnt existed since 1998. Purists everywhere are thrilled...was the decision to rebuild tomorrowland terrace designed to "MAKEZ MONEY" as you would say or was it restored because it would restore some of the quality and uniqueness to the park that was lost?

Yeah, I saw that Lewis Carroll. I thought it was cool that they brought that back. I really love Rolly Crump's work, he is a real interesting guy. I wouldn't really call myself a purist, but this was a welcome change to bring something back from the past.

 

[Shaman]

Money had nothing to do with that because they knew a second disney park in florida was going to generate revenue anyway thats why it was pushed forward.

I highly doubt that...any investment is a huge risk (especially for Disney which wan't exactly as strong as they are now) so I'm sure they wanted to go with something that could yield the most profit. We all know the story....they had two different concepts and just put them together.

People are still LEARNING at the new Seas ...and now they are more willing to learn and experience the pavilion (look how willing people are to sit through a Q&A with a turtle). We got a innovative show in Turtle Talk and a new dark ride...what else could we, as fans, have asked for? It's not like they demolished the pavilion and built a playground or something....

*shrug*

 

[wannab@dis]

I don't know what sick parellel dimension your from but WDI DID have meetings to create a unique theme park that educated and entertained guests.

The Disney Company decided that yes it was time for a second park which was obviously to make more money but the actual design and execution was well thought out and had absoluetly nothing to do with money. They could have just made a different version of Magic Kingdom with a bunch of thrill rides and such but the imagineers instead wanted to design a futuristic theme park inspired by the old pavillions of the world's fair. Alot of thought and care went into desingning and building the park. Money had nothing to do with that because they knew a second disney park in florida was going to generate revenue anyway thats why it was pushed forward.

BTW, Wannab@dis, not sure if you keep up with the news but recently at disneyland they tore down the ugly CLUB BUZZ stageshow in tomorrowland and rebuilt the classic rolly crump tomorrowland terrace with a modern design. Thats right THEY BROUGHT BACk an attraction that hasnt existed since 1998. Purists everywhere are thrilled...was the decision to rebuild tomorrowland terrace designed to "MAKEZ MONEY" as you would say or was it restored because it would restore some of the quality and uniqueness to the park that was lost?

Actually.. if you really think that money had nothing to do with it, then there's nothing else to discuss. That's the bottom line issue with any project at any corporation. I know that some have this fairy tale mentality that Disney created parks because they felt the need to fulfill the wants of consumers without worrying about cost and profits. But, that's simply a fairy tale that was created by the marketing gurus.

Any project that is done at any Disney park is done based on the bottom line. If the replacement of Club Buzz is seen as delivering better ROI (return on investment) then they will move forward on a project that will best utilize the space for the least capital cost and the greatest return.

It's all about the business. Don't be blinded by fairy tales.

Oh, if you don't want this thread locked, you should really rethink your posting style. :wave:

 

[RSoxNo1]

I've been looking over this thread for the last few days. A few things.

1. The purpose of the original post was to be funny. It was very cleverly written, and the author should in no way be criticized for it. He was mocking effectively everything that was to follow (the combative nature of these boards, some individual's ability to find fault with everything). Anyone that didn't see that, probably isn't smart enough to contribute anything positive to these boards.

2. I have not been on the new attraction, I have seen Turtle Talk, and I have been on the original attraction - but barely remember it, because frankly it wasn't that memorable. That's my opinion, I'm entitled to it.

3. Mickey, Donald, Minnie and Goofy were seen as Disney ambassador's when the park was opened (I believe this was stated around page 6). That's definitely a fair statement, and IIRC, they often wore space suits because space travel is the future even though in 1982 (when the park opened) we were celebrating the 13th anniversary of Neil Armstrong taking that famous step. However, that's somewhat irrelevent.

4. I can also accept that Dream Finder and Figment into that ambassador category, because they were original characters - and they had a purpose: to showcase the value of having an imagination

5. Nemo fits into The Living Seas. It's not a stretch by any means. Characters in the movie live in the ocean, many of the species are represented by aquatic life that live in the tank. The problem is that the aquarium itself wasn't unique enough to draw guests in on it's own. Look at the Nemofication of the pavillion as a series of new ambassador's (or perhaps marketers) that will draw guests (and most importantly, children) into a pavillion they otherwise wouldn't go into.

 

[dxwwf3]

If you love change for the sake of change... you should think again...
Not all change is for the good...

It seems people have glossed over the best post of the thread! :sohappy:

However, I don't think this applies to this issue. Everything I've seen on The Seas looks to be well done and the quality is there. I can see how some people might not want characters in Future World pavilions, but I don't think it hurts as long as it fits. Nemo in The Living Seas FITS. Figment (and Dreamfinder ) in Journey Into Imagination FITS. Familiar characters in the current World Showcase attractions DO NOT FIT, IMO.

The Living Seas did need an update. It didn't have to be a complete Nemo changeover, but that's what we got and it appears it wasn't a cheap throw together.

 

[CommandoDisney]

whew! i finally go through all that... im gonna be honest i got to a point where i just kinda skimmed over people's posts. im pretty sure i got the gist. anyway, im not gonna join this discussion with "you people are crazy! here is how things are...." because thats just not right. everyone is entitled to their opinion and NO ONE on these boards is RIGHT or WRONG when they have stated their opinion. quick poll, raise your hand if you are a high ranking, decision making executive at the Walt Disney Co? hmmm... not too many of you... we can all argue what Epcot is/was SUPPOSED to be but it doesnt matter, because it only matters what it is to YOU. yes that may mean it sucks sometimes when things change, but they changed it for a reason. APPARENTLY (not saying its a fact), that means you are in the minority when it comes to your opinion about something changing.

quite frankly for most of us, wdw is going to change for us, whether anything physically changes or not. i remember as a kid thinking the hydrolaters were so cool, but then again i actually thought we were traveling deep below the ocean. the last time i went on, i thought it was lame (just my opinion). things change.

sure some of us would love to see things stay the same where we had great memories. me, id like the yankees to actually do well in the playoffs, like i remember.... but apparently thats not in the cards right now.

some people have been complaining about how because of nemo, kids are gonna call clownfish "nemofish" for some time. i even saw that happen at the baltimore aquarium, so its not just at The Seas. but i remember growing up calling deer "bambis" and elephants "dumbos" so i dont really think its a bad thing. the good news is, i no longer call them that.

and complaining about the over pixarization is a little silly to me too. yes it might seem overbearing sometimes, but i dont consider it some outside force invading the world as some people may see it. the fact is, disney hasnt really had any successful animated characters in a loooong time. kids dont really know who dumbo or brer rabbit is anymore. instead they know nemo, buzz, and mr. incredible. to us older people who know so much more about the wealth of disney characters it might seem like we arent getting any variety, but times change and so does the demographic.

so basically i havent said anything new, i just havent posted in a while and wanted to voice my opinion. im sure most of you just skimmed this and good for you, i tend to ramble sometimes.

 

[SGT623]

WOW ! The humorless posters are coming out of the woodwork. LOL

Great review!

 

[MickeyTigg]

I understand where you are coming from. BUT,please dont think that EVERYONE on this forum shares the negative views that you read. The vast majority are positive about the changes being made, but may not be as vocal as the anti-change people.

Agreed....plus Living Seas was anything but living. It was dieing a slow, painful death. What's better....Nemo with people actually going into the attraction or Dead Seas and no one going in at all?

I'll take Nemo.

 

[Bravesfn1]

everyone is entitled to their opinion and NO ONE on these boards is RIGHT or WRONG when they have stated their opinion.

How true! I wish some people on these boards would take this statement to heart instead of acting like jerks when somebody disagrees with them.

 

[marni1971]

Actually.. if you really think that money had nothing to do with it, then there's nothing else to discuss...

Funnily enough, money had too much to do with it. EPCOT Center was planned not as a theme park, but a themed park, to educate, inform and inspire. And if the guest has fun too, then great. Since it`s budget doubled from $600m to 1.2 Billion (in 1982 terms) it scared the Walker / Miller team from doing anything else. The costs soared very much because of the state of the art attractions intended to inform and inspire. I`ll agree with the next person the Perrin SSE spiel belonged in a museum or classroom, and so it was changed. However, taking SSE again as an example, it was designed from the outset to be factually correct in every way. Anywhere that charges admission and has stores will make money. Like DLP a decade later, it was the initial outlay that nearly brought it all down - in this case the entire company. EPCOT Center placed imagination and engineering first, with business sense second. And it almost cost the company.

 

[Lewis Carroll]

Actually.. if you really think that money had nothing to do with it, then there's nothing else to discuss. That's the bottom line issue with any project at any corporation. I know that some have this fairy tale mentality that Disney created parks because they felt the need to fulfill the wants of consumers without worrying about cost and profits. But, that's simply a fairy tale that was created by the marketing gurus.

Any project that is done at any Disney park is done based on the bottom line. If the replacement of Club Buzz is seen as delivering better ROI (return on investment) then they will move forward on a project that will best utilize the space for the least capital cost and the greatest return.

It's all about the business. Don't be blinded by fairy tales.

Oh, if you don't want this thread locked, you should really rethink your posting style. :wave:

Just remember two things:

"It requires spending money to make money" - Frank Wells (paraphrased)

"QUALITY is a great business plan" - John Lasseter

Yes the Walt Disney Company's objective is to turn a profit however in order to achieve maximum results it has to deliver killer product which it has failed to do in the past ten years and as a result its share value and profits have been in the dumps. Things are starting to look up though, as Reimagineering has noted, so we shall see...

 

[Goofyjimbo]

Why do they have to go changing all the good stuff?

 

[wannab@dis]

Funnily enough, money had too much to do with it. EPCOT Center was planned not as a theme park, but a themed park, to educate, inform and inspire. And if the guest has fun too, then great. And if not? We all know the parks should be fun!! Since it`s budget doubled from $600m to 1.2 Billion (in 1982 terms) it scared the Walker / Miller team from doing anything else. The costs soared very much because of the state of the art attractions intended to inform and inspire. I`ll agree with the next person the Perrin SSE spiel belonged in a museum or classroom, and so it was changed. However, taking SSE again as an example, it was designed from the outset to be factually correct in every way. Anywhere that charges admission and has stores will make money. Like DLP a decade later, it was the initial outlay that nearly brought it all down - in this case the entire company. EPCOT Center placed imagination and engineering first, with business sense second. And it almost cost the company.

Thanks for the informative post! :wave:

I'd like to highlight two sections in the quote as being extremely important to this discussion. See the bolded areas!