Disney has spent nearly $1 billion to fix Disney’s Animal Kingdom and over $1 billion to fix Disney’s Hollywood Studios. Both still need work, but nobody talks about them being these huge failures that just don’t work even though you can look at animals and watch movies on your phone.
I don’t think “look at animals” and “watch movies” are the core mission statements of those respective parks.
Good arguments (a bit hard to read in a few places due to odd punctuation, but... typing on phones) and what I’ve been saying. The general public wasn’t aware of missed metrics, failed goals and unrealized expectations of Disney mgmnt. We only saw a “perfect passion project” that from the day it opened, was doomed to fail if it stuck exactly to the core vision and operating model as designed (and as we hoped it would) to say it was a success just because we loved it, or it even met and exceeded attendance projections doesn’t account fir all of the metrics and nuances of the ways the final project was evaluated.
What metrics did EPCOT Center fail?
Well, it was a success for us and for the time. It just wasn't able to continue on that path due to changes that happened outside of their control. I thought it was a huge success, but I wasn't paying the bills and had no way of knowing just how it was working out. To begin with both MK and EPCOT were basically the same ball park because one ticket took care of admission prices for both. Although they did have via the entry turnstiles an idea how many people were attending both, there was no mechanical way to know if the ticket price should be split in two or just one park. The were paper tickets that were punched to single hole punches, nothing electronic or even slightly identifying full day paid admission or shared. At that time one could also buy partially used tickets in gift shops all along 192. So they were working on head counts and not all heads counted as extra income.
And at that 10 year mark was when the realities of the shifted business model and the speed at which the "future" was being realized started becoming undeniable. I think at that point was when Disney realized that the model was flawed, but instead of going back to the "source material" and looking at how the core mission could be kept (and even enhanced with the new realities in technology and information availability that the park was facing), they instead dug into the corporate sponsorship model further - either using it as a reason to make changes that altered the vision for the park (new Imagination, test track), or used it to defer ANY changes, which simply eroded the aging areas of the park at an even more rapid pace.
right - the pedestrian evaluation of the success of a product is VERY different than the internal, corporate evaluation of it. It was amazing. Im glad I experienced it. I wish there was a way to bring some of that back (there is - its just no the direction they are going), and I am going to have to be OK with all of that. I can move on.
Don't forget that they had also initially sold out to the sponsors that had huge say in what happened. They didn't know anything about theme parks but they did know how much money Disney was billing them for and they wanted what they wanted. Some things stayed the same for a long time but others with strong outside influence changed just not for the better.
right - again why the model was flawed form the beginning for those who want the park they visited in 1982. What made it possible was also what was also a big part of what caused it to evolve into something they don't support. It's like how I say Macy's saved the regional department stores by killing the regional department stores. (of course, now they are in danger of not even pulling that off any more)
Just from personal experience, you didn't have to be a brain surgeon to see the difference in attractions like Horizons and Imagination concerning the numbers of people going to each. In the early 80s those queue lines where huge with all kinds of switch backs. They moved quickly because the per hour ridership capability was huge. By the time that 10 years got there, all those were walk on. That is physical evidence that interest was waning and the majority of the public was no longer interested in what was there. Plus another park had been built that took people away from Epcot. That is why I have always ask why having a fifth park would be beneficial when they aren't able to keep up with the four they already have.
Again, you’re ignoring the larger context of what was also happening with the parks to prop up this tired, false narrative that EPCOT Center was somehow a failure. It was the scapegoat for Roy Disney’s coup and the story has been repeated over and over. The park was a financial success. The park is still a cultural success, which is why “New” Epcot is wrapped in its imagery. Across the board the parks were neglected. Sponsorships were more prevalent at Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom in the past but nobody ever suggested closing Space Mountain. It’s all been topped off by the last fifteen years, a period when the parks were shopped around, original attractions banned despite the success of the Nondescript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever and, most critically to sponsorship of attractions and exhibits, costs have spiraled wildly out of control such that what once bought a Nondescript Coaster now doesn’t even buy Pixar Pier.
Right. Things evolve. Climates change. I wish EPCOT could’ve continued the way it was. I wish many things could’ve stayed the way they were 40 years ago. The trajectory of change and development gets more rapid each day. That’s what I don’t think Disney really counted on... a world they foretold coming to fruition as quickly as it did, and with it, a marked change in consumer tastes, attention spans, and desires. As I’ve said many times, I feel lucky to have experienced first hand the original version of Epcot, but I clearly see why the model it used to deliver its message no longer works. They have had to tweak the message to make it “make sense” with the method they are using. Unlike the original vision, they arent starting with the message, and I think THAT is what stings for so many purists, but even the most revered cultural institutions have had to take a different approach to remain viable for the past decade or do, and it’s only going to become more necessary to evolve.
It can bother you all day long, but it is what it is, and to fret that they won’t pony up money to create a “new version of old Epcot” is only going to lead to frustration and disappointment.
