peter11435
Well-Known Member
But long overdue. The auto plaza is currently in terrible condition and desperately needs a refresh. And the marquee sign there is still using a logo from the early 90’s.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
EPCOT New Park Entrance coming to Epcot
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
durangojim
Well-Known Member
Sitting in the entrance this evening and looking at the prismatic fountain, watching the lights, and listening to the music this evening was the most EPCOT feeling thing I’ve experienced from Disney in probably ten years if not more. It was great.
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
A few pages ago I talked about how the lights look awesome up close, but from further away they drown out the textured geodesic surface and look a bit Vegas or carnival-ish. I think this photo demonstrates that fairly well. Mind you this was also with Night Mode, in person you couldn't really see the triangles from this distance at all and only see the LED dots.
Overall it's great, but I wish it spent less time fully lit at 100% brightness because of this.
Overall it's great, but I wish it spent less time fully lit at 100% brightness because of this.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The words you all are looking for are 'classy' or 'classic' vs 'gaudy' ... 'smash mouth' vs 'subtle'
Look at the Fountains at Bellagio... technically mind blowing, impressive to anyone, the scale alone blows people away... but they don't use rainbow lighting all over the place and frequently (not exclusively) use more classic music than pop-y stuff. The show comes off as grand and classy - to match the Bellagio behind it.
The globe LEDs right now is more techno showoff then classy. I hope they can find a better balance for it's use. But this is kinda to be expected... Disney went through the same growing pains with projection mapping too. There are plenty of good bones in this and potential... the key is knowing the right way to incorporate it and not fall into the trap of just making it into the choregraphed Christmas House decorations we see common now..
Look at the Fountains at Bellagio... technically mind blowing, impressive to anyone, the scale alone blows people away... but they don't use rainbow lighting all over the place and frequently (not exclusively) use more classic music than pop-y stuff. The show comes off as grand and classy - to match the Bellagio behind it.
The globe LEDs right now is more techno showoff then classy. I hope they can find a better balance for it's use. But this is kinda to be expected... Disney went through the same growing pains with projection mapping too. There are plenty of good bones in this and potential... the key is knowing the right way to incorporate it and not fall into the trap of just making it into the choregraphed Christmas House decorations we see common now..
britain
Well-Known Member
I suppose it’s better to err on the side of gaudy for the 50th anniversary, and then dial it back a little for when the party is over.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
It is so hard to get people to realize that Disney Parks are fun parks. They should be fanciful and in your face. The Castle cake was just that, but so many people only saw it as if it were desecracting a shrine or something. The castle was pretty but it was and still is plastic, not real, not a shrine, just a fun building in a theme park. Spaceship Earth varies from that but only slightly. Although built with progress and engineering marvels in mind, it is still a building in a fantasy theme park. It deserves some respect, but let's not make it into a dusty museum or funeral home object. It was built to accommodate a group of scenes and animatronics shows, not feed a hungry nation. My only objection is that this highly impressive building will be remember in the future as a thing to attach lights to for entertainment only, like a movie screen. That is instead of a beautiful, one of a kind building that it is.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Brutalism is about simplicity, materiality and tectonics. It has nothing against landscaping except in something that would be considered opulent as that would go against the ethos of simplicity.
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
You're kind of contradicting yourself here. Is it just a thing that houses a ride, or is it a beautiful, one-of-a-kind building?
(it's the second one)
Edit: I didn't read close enough. You hinted that it has slightly more significance than the castle. My take is that just because it's in a theme park doesn't make it not an important structure to the world.
Last edited:
matt9112
Well-Known Member
100% the fact that the "fun" of a building is being tossed out as sone excuse is absurd. To me the parks have deeper value. It's just fun is something you say about cedar point
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Now you have me confused are you talking about the castle or SSE? SSE is more significant because it is a one of a kind spectacular building that houses an equally impressive theme park ride. It is both! The Castle, although attractive, is one of many castles just within the Disney Company alone and it is just molded plastic common structure on a framework body and it houses nothing. (Sorry it does have a restaurant and an elaborate hotel room that isn't used for anything worthwhile.) It isn't the first of it's kind nor is it even slightly real. There were castles in roadside parks when I was a kid some 65 years ago. The castle was engineered well, but is hardly a engineering marvel. SSE is a structure that was not only extremely difficult to build, the first of it's kind, but also extremely courageous of Disney to even build and putting a ride in there in an upward spiral was ingenious.
I believe that the Castle in Disneyland Paris is actually constructed of real building materials because Europe is the land of real castles and to do any less would be insulting.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
It wasn't because it was a desecration or anything. It was simply the birthday cake castle was hideously ugly and cheap looking.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
Yup. It looked like something a small, local park would do (King's Castle Land in MA comes to mind...it was a VERY small amusement park with lots of sculpted concrete).
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I understand that, what I don't understand is why anyone would just look at that and say that is ugly and cheap looking. For one thing look at it, The planning and engineering that had to go into that to make it fit every part of the castle was hardly cheap. It looked whimsical and in my mind that is exactly what a theme park like MK should look like. Not just whimsical but whimsical in a very exact and detailed way. I knew it wasn't anything designed to be "classy" it was meant to be fun, like a party for the 25th anniversary. So the multi-personality expectations are that MK should be fun and creative, but in a non-humorous, solemn way?
G00fyDad
Well-Known Member
People were upset (me included) because it is a desired and expected photograph icon and some of those people were at Disney for a once in a rare occasion trip. They got into the park only to discover that Disney took a park icon and vomited pink all over it. It was a big let down for a lot of people.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
There was all types of information, trip planners and photos of it during that time. If they didn't know it, they were not paying attention. All of us at one time or the other have arrived at the parks when our favorite or interesting attraction has been closed or covered with canvas. It's too bad, but really, not avoidable. If they went because it was the 25th celebration, then they knew before they got there, if they didn't know then even back then that was a serious glitch in paying attention to the place that had an Icon so important to them that they didn't get to see it during the entire year+ it was expected to be there it ruined their trip. It went up before, during the construction and came down pretty quickly after it was planned to be down. I'm sure it was a big let down, but it wasn't overcomable and I don't think it was nearly as many people as you might think. What did happen though was enough people complained and whined about it even if they didn't really care and had seen the castle a couple of billion times, that we no longer get those big expensive highlights. I don't blame them for not doing it anymore, but it is part of why the parks are so damn dull now.
I think that this particular argument was mostly made up by people that didn't like the concept and thought it was to whimsical for their conservative ideas of what a theme park is supposed to look like. So let's make up a different reason, because that one, if it existed at all was only a minor problem and happens whenever a change is done. Most have no special time frame, this one did and was widely advertised.
Last edited:
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
Whimsy and class aren't mutually exclusive, and things that look appropriately expensive aren't devoid of fun. No one is saying that it couldn't be celebratory or over-the-top. It's a simple matter of expecting more in terms of design, materials, and execution from a park that was known for being a cut above.
Communicora
Premium Member
It is funny, because the castle cake is now beloved by a generation that may have never even experienced it.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Well it didn't actually fit every part of the castle -- it only worked from the front. If you looked at the castle from the side or from behind there were parts that weren't covered and it did not look very good.
Last edited:
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
I thought it was just plain ugly and am so happy to never have seen it in person.
Last edited by a moderator:
It was temporary, whimsical, and fun. (Remember fun?) And not at all something that was at the entrance to Epcot. 