News New Park Entrance coming to Epcot

Brenthodge

Well-Known Member
I never really understand when comments like this.

Of course Disney isn't going to do it -- as I said, they're happy to turn the park into a second Magic Kingdom (or maybe a second DHS). I can't be really disappointed about something I knew wasn't ever going to happen. But the whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss these things.

Disney is making a pretty big mistake with the current work on EPCOT. They're spending a ton of money and adding almost nothing. People are going to go to ride Ratatouille and Guardians when it opens, but that's it. They aren't doing anything that's going to suddenly turn the park into a major draw.

They'd get a much better return on their money if they did build something closer to original EPCOT -- or even if they went in a different direction entirely. Not solely because I loved original EPCOT, but because they need the parks to offer unique experiences. They appear to be headed towards turning three of the parks into something interchangeable, which isn't a great long term strategy.
You think they are making a big mistake. They are proud of their vision. Sadly the one that will win out is the one funding the changes. I feel that THEY feel they ARE making a unique experience (I don’t agree) but to say “they are making a mistake” as a fact, not your opinion, comes off as inflexible and the type of purist they are only providing “visual lip service” to. They don’t see it as such. I also agree that discussion forums are meant for discussion, but I’m tired of trying to envision and muster up passion for something that’s never going to happen.
 

Rich Brownn

Well-Known Member
I assume a lot of that was for the pavilion overall rather than the rides themselves. I think most of the original rides would work fine today other than maybe needing to change the last scene or two. They certainly wouldn't have needed to change the vast majority of World of Motion (which was a vastly superior ride to either incarnation of Test Track), but the whole post-show would have needed an overhaul.

On the other hand, closing World of Motion did give us a few more years of Horizons!
Sponsorships were 10 years. In order to renew sponsors were contractually obligated to pay for changes/upgrades. Hence the dismal JIA - it all Kodak could afford at the time. The lack of new sponsors, more than anything, led to the demise of these attractions.
 

CastAStone

5th gate? Just build a new resort Bob.
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 would assume that the reason no one talks about them as huge failures is because they increased attendance dramatically at AK and DHS,
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I would assume that the reason no one talks about them as huge failures is because they increased attendance dramatically at AK and DHS,

EPCOT had great attendance, though, so that wouldn't be a good reason to call it a failure either. Attendance dropped off when they let things age out/started gutting the park and making a bunch of downgrades to attractions.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
EPCOT had great attendance, though, so that wouldn't be a good reason to call it a failure either. Attendance dropped off when they let things age out/started gutting the park and making a bunch of downgrades to attractions.
EPCOT's attendance was hurt significantly by MGM, DAK and 9-11-01. For the publicly available numbers, it peaked in 1987 but perhaps @marni1971 can confirm the validity of this. More recently it peaked in 1997 and then didn't exceed the 1997 numbers until 2017.

The source of the pre-2005 numbers I have is @donsullivan: https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/2017-theme-park-attendance-data.943129/page-4

I have it year by year here:
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Sponsorships were 10 years. In order to renew sponsors were contractually obligated to pay for changes/upgrades. Hence the dismal JIA - it all Kodak could afford at the time. The lack of new sponsors, more than anything, led to the demise of these attractions.
Well, the error there is that Disney, seeing that sponsors were not able to maintain the quality of the show, didn't take some of their executive bonus money and make it quality without the sponsors. They screwed up big time and are now in a game of catch up. They still have a bigger name then Universal when it comes to theme parks and peoples expectations, but Uni has not sat still. They have created some very good attractions and spent a lot of cash on them. No one is going to Universal and leaving saying, wow, they sure have let themselves go over the years.
 
Last edited:

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
EPCOT's attendance was hurt significantly by MGM, DAK and 9-11-01. For the publicly available numbers, it peaked in 1987 but perhaps @marni1971 can confirm the validity of this. More recently it peaked in 1997 and then didn't exceed the 1997 numbers until 2017.
Your numbers are a bit too high across the board but it peaked in 1987 and didn’t approach the same number again until the last few years.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I would assume that the reason no one talks about them as huge failures is because they increased attendance dramatically at AK and DHS,
After they received significant investment after being allowed to flounder in the case of Disney’s Hollywood Studios and tread water in the case of Disney’s Animal Kingdom. And Expedition Everest was a better investment than the more recent ones with a much lower cost per new person in attendance.
 

FerretAfros

Well-Known Member
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.
Except it's not about the money, it's about the how they're spending it. The money they're currently ponying up is more than enough to put things back on the right track, but it's being spent in a way that both moves the park further away from what made it unique and successful, and will also leave the park feeling incomplete when the work is done.

Take for example The Seas with Nemo and Friends, which opened in 2007. It's based on the popular and successful 2003 film, which had a popular and successful sequel in 2016. By all accounts, it fits the "timeless, relevant, family, Disney" direction that the current renovations are following. And yet, it hasn't been a major draw to the park since shortly after it opened 14 years ago. Is this really an improvement over a more classical Epcot approach? At best, most guests seem to use it as a way to burn their third FP+ reservation, as a forgettable diversion on their way to do something else. A park filled with attractions like this would fail to draw guests away from the other 3 parks, because it adds nothing new to your multi-day vacation; it's just more of the same, executed at a poor-to-middling level. Why bother going to Epcot when Magic Kingdom does the same thing, but better?

Instead of spending the money to spruce up the existing attractions in the park and turn them into worthwhile experiences, they're largely being ignored. Meanwhile, they're spending enormous sums of money to build new attractions that likely won't resonate with guests 15 years from now, and the existing attractions will be even more dated and forlorn by then. Instead of adapting the existing multi-use infrastructure for a new purpose, they're demolishing it and building expensive replacements that aren't as flexible. Instead of giving the whole park a meaningful update, they're dumping huge piles of cash in a couple spots and ignoring the rest.

As with almost all of Epcot's history, it's not the money that's the problem, it's how it is spent. Even after riding the notoriously "cheap"-seeming Imagination 2.0 redo, Michael Eisner furiously wanted to know where all the money had gone, because its budget was far greater than the result would imply.

By all accounts, they're spending enough money that they could make a really positive difference for the park; however, the way that money is being spent leaves very little to show for it.
 

Brenthodge

Well-Known Member
Wow, now if they would only ask you how you’d like them to spend their money, then we would be set! Bet they wish they had asked you first. (I do)

seriously though, I do like the way you think and I’m sorry I ‘take you to task’ but you when pushed come up with well formed, intelligent arguments instead of just chanting like the “never change” crowd. Got what it’s worth, I agree with almost everything you say. No reason PLAY isn’t in a building designed for that type of experience (communicore) in an area about celebration, imagination and story telling. Festival center isn’t in the area about learning and DISCOVERY and Energy isn’t given the real, relevant refresh it needs for such a “now” topic.
 
Last edited:

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
EPCOT's attendance was hurt significantly by MGM, DAK and 9-11-01. For the publicly available numbers, it peaked in 1987 but perhaps @marni1971 can confirm the validity of this. More recently it peaked in 1997 and then didn't exceed the 1997 numbers until 2017.

The source of the pre-2005 numbers I have is @donsullivan: https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/2017-theme-park-attendance-data.943129/page-4

I have it year by year here:

Those numbers graphically...

Epcot Attendance.png
 

cgersic

Well-Known Member
Honest question...does anyone else (who's visited the park) feel the entrance plaza is a bit of a let down? I don't know if it's because the trees are barren atm, but I just expected more "color" and warmth. I think a lot of this has to do with the transition from the red to tan-ish concrete they went to. I don't know.
I didn't see it during the day, but at night, I had to tear myself away from the area. Love it!!
 

Nunu

Wanderluster
Premium Member

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
EPCOT's attendance was hurt significantly by MGM, DAK and 9-11-01. For the publicly available numbers, it peaked in 1987 but perhaps @marni1971 can confirm the validity of this. More recently it peaked in 1997 and then didn't exceed the 1997 numbers until 2017.

The source of the pre-2005 numbers I have is @donsullivan: https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/2017-theme-park-attendance-data.943129/page-4

I have it year by year here:

Which makes sense, because EPCOT has gotten consistently worse since the late 90s. Soarin' is the only positive change they made in the last 20 years (at least off the top of my head; there could be some others).

Although I'm not a fan of what they're doing now, at least they're finally doing something beyond just letting it rot.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member

flynnibus

Premium Member
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.

This mindset really has little to do with EPCOT. Disney was doing this with sponsorships across the board. By the 70s Disney was no longer the guy begging to borrow money but was in the position to charge for access to itself. Be it Disneyland, MK, or the new EPCOT - this was common place.

Disney riding attractions out long after they are stale while they hunt for a new sponsor was not an EPCOT problem at all - it was a Disney problem. Addicted to free money.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom