News New Play Pavilion to replace Epcot's Wonders of Life

UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
egg said:
The whole “I’d rather see” thing is silly because they have no plan to build something better. If Play doesn’t happen, this sits empty or rarely utilized for the next 10+ years.
Click to expand...

I think it's unlikely it sits empty for 10+ more years, but I'd still take that over Play! -- because if Play! was actually built and opened, we'd almost certainly be stuck with it for much longer than 10 years and the whole concept was a ridiculous waste of space for an EPCOT pavilion.

If there was some kind of guarantee that Play! was only going to be around for a few years instead of being left to rot for decades (like, say, Imagination...), then sure, it'd be better than nothing. Since that was very unlikely, it's essentially opportunity cost, both of the use of the pavilion itself and of the funds that were going to be spent on Play! potentially being allocated to something better (yeah, that seems unlikely too).
 
No Name

No Name

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
I think it's unlikely it sits empty for 10+ more years, but I'd still take that over Play! -- because if Play! was actually built and opened, we'd almost certainly be stuck with it for much longer than 10 years and the whole concept was a ridiculous waste of space for an EPCOT pavilion.

If there was some kind of guarantee that Play! was only going to be around for a few years instead of being left to rot for decades (like, say, Imagination...), then sure, it'd be better than nothing. Since that was very unlikely, it's essentially opportunity cost, both of the use of the pavilion itself and of the funds that were going to be spent on Play! potentially being allocated to something better (yeah, that seems unlikely too).
Click to expand...
I’ll see you in 2033!
 
D

doctornick

Well-Known Member
egg said:
The whole “I’d rather see” thing is silly because they have no plan to build something better. If Play doesn’t happen, this sits empty or rarely utilized for the next 10+ years.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The idea that Disney will "build something better" if indeed this is cancelled seems silly, especially given how the space has already been sitting (essentially) unused for years. Wonders of Life closed 16 years ago and it took a long time just to get this modest project approved. Do people really think that Disney is about to go and approve an even larger budget for a more ambitious reworking in the near future? I mean, keep on dreaming if you like, but Play was the best shot we had for something in this space in the next 5-10 years.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
doctornick said:
Agreed. The idea that Disney will "build something better" if indeed this is cancelled seems silly, especially given how the space has already been sitting (essentially) unused for years. Wonders of Life closed 16 years ago and it took a long time just to get this modest project approved. Do people really think that Disney is about to go and approve an even larger budget for a more ambitious reworking in the near future? I mean, keep on dreaming if you like, but Play was the best shot we had for something in this space in the next 5-10 years.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the overall point, though.

If the "something" going in that space is a terrible use of the space, it's still not a good idea -- because we know Disney isn't going to replace it after a few years. It will sit there for decades, whereas if the space is empty, there's at least the chance of something better. They are more likely to replace the empty space in the next decade than they are to change the Play! Pavilion if it was built and opened.

Not only is Imagination a good example, Dino-Rama is an even better one. It was designed to be a quick and temporary fix and it's still there 20+ years later.

Something isn't inherently better than nothing when opportunity cost is involved.
 
Last edited:
No Name

No Name

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
That doesn't change the overall point, though.

If the "something" going in that space is a terrible use of the space, it's still not a good idea -- because we know Disney isn't going to replace it after a few years. It will sit there for decades, whereas if the space is empty, there's at least the chance of something better. They are more likely to replace the empty space in the next decade than they are to change the Play! Pavilion if it was built and opened.

Not only is Imagination a good example, Dino-Rama is an even better one. It was designed to be a quick and temporary fix and it's still there 20+ years later.

Something isn't inherently better than nothing when opportunity cost is involved.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that something better would’ve been built if Dino-Rama wasn’t there? Everything they’ve done leads me to believe it would still be an empty plot of land. The fact that the main attraction has been closed/gone for 3 years without any replacement in the works is telling.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
egg said:
Why do you believe that something better would’ve been built if Dino-Rama wasn’t there? Everything they’ve done leads me to believe it would still be an empty plot of land. The fact that the main attraction has been closed/gone for 3 years without any replacement in the works is telling.
Click to expand...

It absolutely could still be an empty plot of land -- and that would probably be preferable.

Dino-Rama is well-executed for what it is (i.e. it successfully executes the intended theme) but it was never a good idea from the start. Its presence diminishes Animal Kingdom because it's so out of place with the rest of the park. While Play! Pavilion wouldn't really have that issue at EPCOT, especially considering you'd have to go inside the building to see anything, it would still be both eliminating a place to develop something actually worthwhile and siphoning funds that could be used to better effect elsewhere.

Of course there's the capacity argument, but considering Play! Pavilion wasn't even using the attraction space, it's not like it was going to have any significant effect on capacity either. I'll take the chance, even if it's a small one, of something better eventually opening there instead of having the space permanently committed to such a waste.

I understand why people feel otherwise, though, if only for capacity's sake. I just don't personally think that having something is automatically better than nothing when taking all factors into consideration.
 
Magicart87

Magicart87

No Refunds!
Premium Member
UNCgolf said:
It absolutely could still be an empty plot of land -- and that would probably be preferable.

Dino-Rama is well-executed for what it is (i.e. it successfully executes the intended theme) but it was never a good idea from the start.
Click to expand...
The opposite. I think the idea was a good one but failed in execution.
 
Magicart87

Magicart87

No Refunds!
Premium Member
UNCgolf said:
Why do you think it failed in execution? It's pretty spot on for a roadside tourist trap.

It's just that nobody really wants to see that in the middle of a theme park.
Click to expand...
It's not though, IMO. It's far too pristine and perfect to be anything remotely "tourist trap" like. It's too Disney. It doesn't look "cheap" by tourist trap dumpy roadside attraction standards. It just looks cheap by Disney standards. The distinction is important. It needed to strike the right balance. Something bordering on derelict but not quite, more of a tongue in cheek homage but pushed to the extremes. What we got was bright colors, newness and off the shelf rides. I think back to A Goofy Movie where Max visits Lester's Possum Park.... It should have been more like that. That aesthetic would have gone a long way in establishing the backstory. For DAK, a worn, aged yet charming aesthetic would have been ideal. I think they had a good idea. They just faltered on execution. It's meant to be nostalgic. It's not.
 
Last edited:
MagicHappens1971

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
Magicart87 said:
It's not though, IMO. It's far too pristine and perfect to be anything remotely "tourist trap" like. It's too Disney. It doesn't look "cheap" by tourist trap dumpy roadside attraction standards. It just looks cheap by Disney standards. The distinction is important. It needed to strike the right balance. Something bordering on derelict but not quite, more of a tongue in cheek homage but pushed to the extremes. What we got was bright colors, newness and off the shelf rides. I think back to A Goofy Movie where Max visits Lester's Possum Park.... It should have been more like that. That aesthetic would have gone a long way in establishing the backstory. For me it doesn't evoke a tourist trap carnival.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree, I think they did an incredible job with the execution, of a bad theme. Unlike Toy Story Land, where they poorly executed a bad theme.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Magicart87 said:
It's not though, IMO. It's far too pristine and perfect to be anything remotely "tourist trap" like. It's too Disney. It doesn't look "cheap" by tourist trap dumpy roadside attraction standards. It just looks cheap by Disney standards. The distinction is important. It needed to strike the right balance. Something bordering on derelict but not quite, more of a tongue in cheek homage but pushed to the extremes. What we got was bright colors, newness and off the shelf rides. I think back to A Goofy Movie where Max visits Lester's Possum Park.... It should have been more like that. That aesthetic would have gone a long way in establishing the backstory. For DAK, a worn, aged yet charming aesthetic would have been ideal. I think they had a good idea. They just faltered on execution. It's meant to be nostalgic. It's not.
Click to expand...

It's an idealized version of a roadside tourist trap for sure, like most things at Disney. I agree that it's nicer than an actual crappy roadside tourist trap, but that would have been worse than what exists -- it just needed to evoke one, and I think it's pretty clear that's what it's supposed to be (at least for anyone who knows what that is, and I think the number of people who do know that is rapidly declining).
 
Magicart87

Magicart87

No Refunds!
Premium Member
UNCgolf said:
It's an idealized version of a roadside tourist trap for sure, like most things at Disney. I agree that it's nicer than an actual crappy roadside tourist trap, but that would have been worse than what exists -- it just needed to evoke one, and I think it's pretty clear that's what it's supposed to be (at least for anyone who knows what that is, and I think the number of people who do know that is rapidly declining).
Click to expand...
The fact that TriceraTop Spin could be plopped down in Toy Story Land and work as-is kind of proves how lax WDI was with DINORAMA's theme. We can agree to disagree. It had the potential to be greater.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom