Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
On it's own, I'll admit its not that egregious of an attraction. It's just horribly placed.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Pirates refurb dates released
- Thread starter GiveMeTheMusic
- Start date
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
Certainly no more misplaced than an attraction about the history of transportation.
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
Don't get me wrong, I loved World of Motion. But if we're debating appropriate placement of Epcot attractions, I would argue that most of the original Future World (aside from Horizons) was hardly rooted in the 'Future.'
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
See, I always interpreted FW as, "here's where we've been, here's where we are now, let's look ahead to what's to come."
As more of a casual observer then participant of this forum, it is always nice to post something, and just let others have the actual discussion. 
But now I am wondering just how much does the fact that Disney is a publicly traded company (with the requirement of maximizing profits for shareholders) influence the decisions the company makes today? And if it were no longer such, exactly how much would it be for the better? Let the discussion continue! *Grabbing the popcorn*
But now I am wondering just how much does the fact that Disney is a publicly traded company (with the requirement of maximizing profits for shareholders) influence the decisions the company makes today? And if it were no longer such, exactly how much would it be for the better? Let the discussion continue! *Grabbing the popcorn*
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Like I said, I'm not the only one who has pointed this out. Its a pretty well discussed topic on almost every Disney board out there. I believe there were even discussions about it on the WDW side.
If you look at the cheek bone/nose area you will see the similarities. The over accentuated cheek bone structure is too similar for it to be coincidence. Now like I mentioned, it could be they used the same mold to make the redheads face.
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
I wonder the same thing. And I suspect that shareholder happiness is numero uno in Iger's mind. Well, that and his annual bonus.As more of a casual observer then participant of this forum, it is always nice to post something, and just let others have the actual discussion.
But now I am wondering just how much does the fact that Disney is a publicly traded company (with the requirement of maximizing profits for shareholders) influence the decisions the company makes today? And if it were no longer such, exactly how much would it be for the better? Let the discussion continue! *Grabbing the popcorn*
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
They're both terrible looking robots that look like they took a dive off the ugly robot tree and hit every branch going down.
That Tarzan lady was always the one crappy creepy looking robot of the bunch in the GMR. The rest got by on charm, including the plastic looking mannequin of Tarzan swinging back and forth. I think it was the brightness of that scene that really ruined her.
D
Deleted member 107043
I'm late to this discussion, and I realize I'm part of a very small minority with this opinion, but I've always found the cave sequence in Pirates to be over-long and somewhat boring. It's all good from the drops to the treasure room, but following that exciting build-up the pace falls flat until the battle scene.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
Disowned!!!!!!
D
Deleted member 107043
I think I get stuck on how much better the overall pacing is on Paris' Pirates compared to Disneyland's. After experiencing it DL's seems off somehow. Of all the versions, excluding Shanghai's, which looks exceptional, Paris' Pirates is superior in almost every way in my opinion.
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
That’s because that’s mostly what it was — doesn’t make the title Future World any more relevant by calling a spade a spade though. Not to mention, the ‘what’s to come’ future part was maybe 20% of it all at best.
This isn’t me saying I wasn’t a fan, because 82-94 EPCOT Center is my favorite thing ever. I’m just saying if we’re to argue whether or not something is properly placed or not, it’s helpful to take a step back and examine if any of it has ever really been that relevant to the land it’s in.
To add to that, if you really take a look at most of the 'Future' of the original Future World, most of that stuff was aimed squarely at the attraction sponsors and was about what they had in development at the time. New cars, communications systems, fuel, etc. It wasn't a look at 'our' future, it was a look at 'their' future.
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
And that long dark tunnel was over-long and somewhat boring for 1967 audiences, and a mandatory concession to getting the boats out beyond the berm to the real show. All due to a physical setup that was forced to bridge a circa 1961 plan for a walk-thru wax museum to a radically altered 1965 plan for a ride-thru animatronic show.
For 2018 audiences, not to mention 2025 and 2035 audiences, it's a long boring dark tunnel that does nothing to tell the story. And I'll say it again, it's a perfect place to slot in Shanghai Pirates animatronic tech and storytelling techniques that no one could have dreamed of in 1965.
Now, how many more months until this ride reopens?