Absolutely. I've spent much of my life in the sign business...you wouldn't believe what some have looked like after a few years in New England weather even though they look fine from a distance (I once had to repair a wooden sign that was so rotted from the inside-out thanks to construction that allowed water to get inside that I could literally poke my finger through the surface).
Yep. As I said, they just didn’t want to keep up with it.
Imagine you had an addition put on your home and it ended up costing far more than planned and ended up being far less than was originally proposed. And if on top of that everything that was meant to last at ten years needed extensive work well before, then you'd be hard-pressed to open your wallet so wide again.
I find it hard to believe that the designers of Epcot didn't know that their attractions would need periodic refreshing. I would be shocked if they didn't even have a chart projecting what the refresh cycle timeline would be and what parts would need to be changed as they aged and what the projected costs would be. I sure would want to know these things before greenlighting them.
They did. Life expectancy was up to ten years.
Martin's videos on the original EPCOT Center rides usually make mention of the ability to replace content, IIRC.
Right, I knew what you were referring to.
Go on continuing to ignore that EPCOT Center was profitable and helped keep the entire company in the black.
Well stated. I was lucky enough to have experienced that “mistake”, and loved that “mistake”, but am clear headed enough to realize that yes, it was an experiment, experience, and product, not of even it’s time, but of about a decade before. It was amazing, but our world has changed. I do think there are more elements of its original ideals that could be included in its reimagining, but I totally see the why they are doing what they are doing.
You don’t use the imagery and iconography of a mistake to sell something “new”.
Mistake was probably not the best choice of words, but I get what he is saying. EPCOT center was an attempt at reconciling a visionary dream of Disney with a reality that could actually happen. I feel like it was a project that needed to happen and Disney changed because of it, but shifts in management thinking since it’s inception no longer align with its ideals.
Shifts in management, not a problem with the park, especially the idea that it was a financial failure. None of his issues of aesthetics or costs are being addressed either.
While it was successful out of the gate, Short term gain vs long term investment can apply here. The financial model they funded the park on was flawed and became more so over time. The fact that mgmt didn’t restructure that in a way that assumed Disney would foot more of the bill caused more problems. I think they continued down an unsustainable path far too long hoping “someone else” would find the major updates needed. No I’ve did, and THEY didn’t, so now we are at the place that I think current mgmt sees the core mission as unrelatable now and is looking for “long game” solutions that won’t get them back into the situation their poor management got them to.
Disney spent decades trying to not invest in all of the parks. The fundamental changes with their business that made this an issue across the board have not changed and will not be changed by this project.
I’m confused. So are you for or against tap lights added onto spaceship earth? I’ve lost you here.
