Nemo ruined it! Bring back hydrolators!

[nibblesandbits]

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.

See that's just it...you don't think that M:S or TT teaches anything...and while these new rides may not teach as much as the old ones used to...it still teaches something. I would never know how a "testing ground" for cars works, but with Test Track, guess what? I learned something. And if they entertained me by making the ride go really fast at the end...so be it. That's that edu-tainment that I was talking about. And I would also never know what it "felt" like to travel to space...which if I remember correctly, M:S allows you to feel that. And, if I also remember correctly, actual people from NASA helped to design that ride and have said it is the closest thing to space as you can get without doing the real thing. So...see, I've learned something there...so that's edu-tainment as well.

So I don't get the whole notion of people arguing that these rides don't teach anything. Because I've learned from them. Just because they aren't what they used to be, doesn't make them bad and it doesn't mean that we aren't learning. We're just learning in a bit of a different way.

 

[v_misses_epcot]

*sighs* Disney would be rolling in his grave if he were to be reading all this.

 

[SirGoofy]

EDIT: Messed up my bad.

 

[SirGoofy]

*sighs* Disney would be rolling in his grave if he were to be reading all this.

Cuz you know what Walt wanted. Walt wanted Epcot to be a city, so I'm sure he was rolling in his grave when they made it a theme park, right? I'm sick of people acting like they know what "Walt would've wanted."

 

[marni1971]

Further to post #117 I feel I should add some more;

After EPCOT Center nearly brought WDP down with it, the company sold the lisence for TDL to the Oriental Land Company - only for them to reep millions whilst, if I recall, the now WDC only gets at best 20% total. Business sense has brought about great dissapointments too - DCA, WDSP, HKDL for example. And brought about monumental mistakes (Disneylands upkeep, Rocket Rods, WDWs 20K for example)

This shows the company swang from being too liberal to too conservative. They still need to find the fine line between the two with consecutive projects. SGE was poorly recieved by the same people who a year later love E:E. The company did JIYI whilst they were planning Soarin` over California. Once upon a time it would have been Everest after Soarin` after Everest. That`s no fairy tale :wave:

 

[Shaman]

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.

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

Great review!

What exactly are you adding to the discussion with these comments? :veryconfu

Anyways....

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.

Great post!


----

For those that don't like the Nemo invasion...what in your minds would've been a valid update of TLS?

 

[Epcot82Guy]

What exactly are you adding to the discussion with these comments? :veryconfu

Anyways....



Great post!


----

For those that don't like the Nemo invasion...what in your minds would've been a valid update of TLS?

I actually think the general execution of the update works. Keep the colorful fish decals. Update the attraction to have a circle vision preshow that brings you under the water and showcases some of what the film dealt with (in a new, more colorful way). Then have the attraction be hosted by a new, original character. Just change the tone slightly to be the "Wait until you see everything that is here" approach. Then end it with "When we work together, look at what we can discover."

I would have kept the exit hydrolators. I also would have kept a little more on sea exploration equipment in one bay (updated).

Overall, the update is not bad. As I (and others) have said is the precedent it establishes. It attacks the concept of Epcot and changes the feeling. I actually like the interjection of "fun" in the approach to Epcot (more the Childrens' museum rather than Smithsonian approach) because the initial run didn't work for everyone. However, the use of characters seems cheap. It says "we aren't able to come up with an inspiring way to talk about sea exploration without Mickey ears tatooed all over." While many want a lot of Disney in their Disney World, there are many that don't. Change is a difficult thing in that ramifications come later if the balance is lost. Your audience starts to drift, but that doesn't show up for months or years. I think one of Disney's biggest downfalls has been overkill. Subtlety and whetting the appetite feels classy and high-quality. Having things that are over-marketed and ever-present feels complacent, commonplace, and cheap. You change the feeling, and you lose your core. That is fine if you replace them, but I don't know that some of these trends will breed the type of life-long loyalty that WDW did earlier. Obviously, only time will tell on that, but that also means (if it is not) it is too late.

 

[Madison]

The posts of Diznee Phreek = Borderline genius.

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

Did I cease to be borderline genius?


Sometimes, inspiring people to dream is good business sense and the original Epcot model understood this. It doesn't necessarily rely on admissions and souvenir sales to "make money," but on sponsorship arrangements that provide long term benefit to both companies. Creating goodwill is, of course, often times more valuable than selling a single product and the World's Fair model -- and thus the Epcot model -- were informed by that philosophy.

Consider the company's experience at the 1964/65 New York World's Fair. Companies and states alike each paid the company to produce their pavilions, of course resulting the creation of some of the most well known attractions in history. Though the Fair was a financial disaster, nearly falling into bankruptcy, the company emerged from it with new technology, new attractions and an increased awareness of its product among those who live on the eastern seaboard. For their part, the sponsors received enduring recognition of their unique contributions to the fair. While knowledge of the fair is not widespread, I think you'd find that more people know of Disney and Pepsi's collaboration on 'it's a small world' than of any other pavilion.

Ultimately, I suppose all I'm trying to say is that, while the company was certainly interested in making money, there's more than one road to the same destination. The Magic Kingdom makes money from gate admissions, food and souvenirs, while Epcot originally was intent on generating revenue from sponsorship arrangements.

I understand why people think that the Nemo ride is and will continue to be successful. It genuinely is a top notch C ticket attraction and I'd be thrilled to see it anywhere else. I'm just lamenting the loss of Epcot and, certainly in a greater sense, of the sensibility that made places like Epcot special. I'd love to see the folks at Disney greenlight something that speaks to the spirit of the park, even if 25 years later we've taught everyone to think that being smart is lame. Siemens signed on to sponsor Spaceship Earth so there's still some hope, but I can't help wonder if a gesture on behalf of the company in support of the park's original inspiration wouldn't cause more sponsors to take a chance on that vision again. Instead, it just seems like they've thrown in the towel.

 

[wannab@dis]

You change the feeling, and you lose your core. That is fine if you replace them, but I don't know that some of these trends will breed the type of life-long loyalty that WDW did earlier. Obviously, only time will tell on that, but that also means (if it is not) it is too late.

But doesn't that work in the other direction also? They waited to long to start changing EPCOT because it was dying and it was almost to late. They still need have more work to do and honestly, it's taken to long to rid the park of the old and tired ideas.

You (and others) seem to think the introduction of a couple of characters is extreme, but yet you want the opposite extreme... none - oh, except for the chosen ones - DF/Figment. It's also interesting that in just this thread, more people thought the hydrolators were old/boring than the ones that liked them. Get out of this microcosm of Disney fandom, and I bet that's magnified greatly.

I'm glad you seem to at least accept the work and maybe give it chance. Doesn't sound like you're excited by no means, but rather it seems like "blah - whatever". :lol:

 

[wannab@dis]

Ultimately, I suppose all I'm trying to say is that, while the company was certainly interested in making money, there's more than one road to the same destination. The Magic Kingdom makes money from gate admissions, food and souvenirs, while Epcot originally was intent on generating revenue from sponsorship arrangements.

I don't buy that at all. (yeah, bad pun.)

The sponsorship deals are a scratch in the bucket of the money the park generates or would be expected to generate. The sponsorships were about covering capital expenditures and ongoing costs... not as a profit center.

 

[SirGoofy]

You (and others) seem to think the introduction of a couple of characters is extreme, but yet you want the opposite extreme... none - oh, except for the chosen ones - DF/Figment. It's also interesting that in just this thread, more people thought the hydrolators were old/boring than the ones that liked them. Get out of this microcosm of Disney fandom, and I bet that's magnified greatly.

Yea wannab, you bring up a great point here. I'm one of those guys who is dying for a DF return, but it makes no sense to put him above any other character, cuz that's what he is, a character. It hypocritical to call for his return, yet completely bash the idea of Nemo.

 

[Madison]

I don't buy that at all. (yeah, bad pun.)

The sponsorship deals are a scratch in the bucket of the money the park generates or would be expected to generate. The sponsorships were about covering capital expenditures and ongoing costs... not as a profit center.

Heh.

Would you believe...?

I'm away from the apartment for the rest of the day trying to get Microsoft to pony up some more money so I can go on changing the world, but I think the sponsorship at a park like Epcot buys a company more than, say, getting their name attached to Splash Mountain. I'm speculating, of course, so if you're sitting there with Epcot's checkbook in front of you, I concede -- but I think there's a good argument to be made that Disney fully expected a different sort of revenue model for the Epcot park.

As an aside, because I get self-conscious, I also want to note here as I've done in the past that I am not getting my panties all in twist over this. I think the discussion is fun and, heaven knows, if there weren't people here every day reminding me that money can be an important consideration, I'd be bankrupt, living in a cardboard box and doing nothing to help anyone.

 

[Tim G]

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've never called new attractions Crap... I know the amount of work behind it...

 

[Tim G]

Cuz you know what Walt wanted. Walt wanted Epcot to be a city, so I'm sure he was rolling in his grave when they made it a theme park, right? I'm sick of people acting like they know what "Walt would've wanted."

Please mind your words... treat everyone the way you want to be treated...

It's only a thread... so please stay cool...

He only dreamed of a city, and he would have liked it... but he knew the lay-out of the park before he died, so he knew what it would look like...

And I don't know what Walt would have wanted...
but as long it makes money... Yes! Walt would have wanted that...

 

[marni1971]

I've never called new attractions Crap... I know the amount of work behind it...

Indeed. Those working on them only have finite capital and time to work within. Call those who call the shots crap if need be.

 

[Tim G]

Further to post #117 I feel I should add some more;

After EPCOT Center nearly brought WDP down with it, the company sold the lisence for TDL to the Oriental Land Company - only for them to reep millions whilst, if I recall, the now WDC only gets at best 20% total. Business sense has brought about great dissapointments too - DCA, WDSP, HKDL for example. And brought about monumental mistakes (Disneylands upkeep, Rocket Rods, WDWs 20K for example)

This shows the company swang from being too liberal to too conservative. They still need to find the fine line between the two with consecutive projects. SGE was poorly recieved by the same people who a year later love E:E. The company did JIYI whilst they were planning Soarin` over California. Once upon a time it would have been Everest after Soarin` after Everest. That`s no fairy tale :wave:

I couldn't have said it better... :kiss:

 

[Piebald]

Ugh you guys bug me so much.

The ride is really cute and very well done. The special effects are really, really neat and I loved the queue. The attraction will definitely be popular with families and hopefully it will bring new life into such a crappy pavillion. I hadn't even stepped foot in that place in forever and I've been visiting WDW for the past 20 years.

 

[Tim G]

I never said it wasn't a nice ride... I said I'm having doubts about it's durability... This ride probably won't make it for 5 years... it was a desperate move to save the pavillion...

 

[marni1971]

I hadn't even stepped foot in that place in forever and I've been visiting WDW for the past 20 years.

TLS only opened 20 years ago... you missed a great attraction in it`s hey day.

Ever stop to think how much better the makeover could have been with more money?

 

[Shaman]

I never said it wasn't a nice ride... I said I'm having doubts about it's durability... This ride probably won't make it for 5 years... it was a desperate move to save the pavillion...

Yeah that may be an issue...but who knows maybe it becomes a classic like one of the MK dark rides...

The infrastructure is there...I suppose it would not be so hard to refresh and update it every now and then with different scenes...then again, I am not an expert...

Maybe they should have demolished the pavilion and started from scratch...It seems that they were kinda limited by the layout and design of TLS...