Possible Attraction in France pavilion (Epcot) Update - new Attraction Greenlit

[DDLand]

Original intentions were to put a weather-proof bubble dome over the whole thing. I guess there's no magic without that.

This was never the intention. Watch the Epcot Film. This is a misconception that has spread into the Disney Internet world.

It originated from this:

For proper perspective, that was on this:

Walt Disney wasn't an idiot, which is what many want you to believe. EPCOT was ambitious, but not impossible.

 

[DinoInstitute]

DHS is adopting the same theme as USF where instead of seeing how movies are made we now jump into them. Of course there's also some TV and music thrown in on both sides as well.

Which, not to get too off topic, I think is going to be really fun. The way I'm seeing it, the park will almost be set up like Epcot in a way where it has two halves to it, both related to each other in overall theme, but not exactly so much in environment... with DHS's immersive Old Hollywood half and the then the IP lands that put you in the movies like TS, SW, and Muppets. Assuming work happens for Echo Lake/Animation Courtyard to fit into one of the two sides, I think the park will turn out pretty nice (excluding the fact that it lacks a sufficient attraction count).

I apologize to bring this back, but just to clarify. Most people want more rides in EPCOT, but they want them to be thematically apropriate, and not replace another ride.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, but replacements are definitely going to be important too if this park is to get a proper revitalization...Notably major replacements for Imagination, Energy, everything that has to do with Innoventions, and then not so much a replacement but huge refurbishment to the SSE decent (also some people could argue to add Nemo and Mission Space to that list, though I think they are fine for what they are and shouldn't be priorities).

So, in sum, Epcot needs work basically everywhere

 

[MisterPenguin]

There are no plans for Australia in WS. They dropped out circa 1978.

There goes my hope for an Opera Ride.

I heard of original plans for a klondike saloon in Canada, now that would get me to stay a while .

We can call it West World!

In doing so you loose your main storytelling device.

You need glasses then. And better hearing given the audio system was recently revamped.

But seriously, a new version is on it's way. Slowly.

I still got my farsightedness and I can hardly make out what's projected on that globe. Not only wasn't it made big enough, but they made the unfortunate decision to only have the land masses be solid. So, you're projecting onto just 30% of the globe. And some sections are so small that images are cut-off or way too small to be seen from far away if you try to make it fit (e.g., Greenland or the southern half of South America).

Then you have the issue of it being at ground level and the surrounding lakeside is mostly flat such that being only three rows back in the crowd and you can't see what's happening at the top of the water's surface.

If in the update they still are including a globe, which is perfectly thematic, I hope it is much larger and the whole surface is a screen, not just the landmasses. I hope it's much larger and higher (or raises up for the show).

 

[Irie]

Meh. I have trouble hearing and seeing it even with the new screens. Time for an updated show.

Wait, how did you see it from your house? You have to go to the park to see and hear it.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I presented my opinion as to why I think Frozen and other random IPs do not fit with the original theme of WS.

ad nauseam.

Maybe the issue is we don't agree on what the theme actually was

I think it's slightly different - I think we don't agree on how rigid that theme needs to be.

So the original concept for WS was intended to be a nod to Walt Disney's original idea for an international shopping area as part of his E.P.C.O.T concept. It was intended to a permanent World's Fair featuring the look, feel, cuisine, entertainment and shopping from countries around the world. The pavilions were intended to be an authentic representation of the culture and cuisine of the host countries including hiring CMs from those countries. So far this is all fact and not my opinion.

Assuming that is fact - it is history. There is no telling if Walt lived to today or if Disney was run by original imagineers & bean counters what they would be doing today. Walt had his head in the clouds and his feet on the ground at the same time IMO. If you're telling me Epcot was never meant to evolve - I think we can both agree that's the opposite of what was intended. Expanding a business will necessarily entail sometimes uncomfortable compromise at certain levels. There will be some trade-off of artistic integrity for commercialism. You see that in virtually all the arts - especially music & movies. Disney was not snobby stuff, he was pop culture.

Any business owner starts out with a vision or hypothesis. And then they adapt it. There are adaptations made at the planning stages, the building stages, and then the refining stages - based on laws/regulations, based on practical restrictions, and based on sales/public response.

There is no telling what those with perhaps the most credibility (early Disney people) would have done in today's circumstances. Even if they expressed an opinion in writing in 1965 or 1975, those opinions were expressed outside of today's circumstances.

But we don't have to guess what the Disney of today would do - they did it. And like any business has to make decisions and evolve, they decided to put the Frozen ride (which took place in Norway in the animated film) into their representation of Norway in Epcot.

One can argue all the fine points of whether or not it "belongs." One will never know if they are "correct" based on the supposed opinions of folks no longer alive or no longer involved. The bottom line for me: It's in Disney World. Therefore, it's OK. That is the one unifying thing here - they're all Disney World representations - of stories, of countries, etc.

And of course money factors into these decisions, it's completely idealistic and naive to think otherwise. It would be malpractice for them to not consider it.

Epcot is old. Some people don't even go to World Showcase or just walk through the main walkway and never fully explore it. If it takes a refresh that adds more rides and Disney characters to generate more interest, cool. It was what it was. It will be what it will be. It will work or not work based on foot traffic, not based on the opinions of a few on a message board. I can't imagine the average parkgoer thinks like this. And I can't imagine Walt would cater to superfans with a sense of entitlement.

As I suspect others do, I took World Showcase in stages (and all of Disney World, really.) Your first visit, you want to rush through and see everything. When you're younger, you don't have the money to do much table service. Then you come back with annual passes and can leisurely explore more detail, more spaces, more shops, and nicer restaurants. You throw in some tours here and there. It's great that WDW has so much that you can't take it all in even in a few trips - and it's ever evolving to add more.

But I've always thought it was missing attractions. And apparently more attractions had been planned, so I'm not alone.

Whether those attractions are educational, representative of their host countries to x degree, or strongly or even loosely tied-in IP's, I think is where we start splitting hairs. I think there's room for all of those approaches; and I think I am personally more ready to accept Disney IP's throughout Disney World. I also think yes, it makes the "educational" more approachable. Not all of us are complete nerds. I am never going to Norway. I don't care a lot about Norway, and I don't have any reason to learn more than the very very basic basics about Norway. I went on Maelstrom most times we visited Epcot. I enjoyed it. I watched the Frozen movie once. I liked the Frozen ride better than Maelstrom. That's not an intellectual dissertation. That's a feeling. That's what it should be, for me.

I wish (and have always wished) that there were more rides on that side of the park.

Me too!

 

[articos]

I'd hope so but take nothing for granted.

I'm guessing you and I are on the same page.

We usually are.

I would think so. Disney knows that if they built a pavilion and just had food/shopping without a major attraction that they would be shredded by the online community and even casual guests would be unhappy.

That's the one reason I wouldn't mind seeing a new country be built -- because it pretty much b y default would have to include a big attraction and the WS needs it. So, I'd be happy if something were announced at D23 or the like.

But honestly I'd rather see Disney invest money on expanding the existing pavilions with new rides or other attractions. I'm one of those that feels every pavilion should have at least one big entertainment offering (not just streetmosphere).

It unfortunately doesn't have as much to do with guest opinion or the online community. It's numbers. Any addition to a park - any park - is run through different sets of numbers in the initial development phase. For any expansion, there's an expectation it will add to the guest totals in the park. An attraction, a show, a land, a pavilion at WS - the planning looks at the number of additional guests expected to add to the attendance totals and balances that against the costs to design, build and operate. A shopping and dining addition to World Showcase alone - paid for by the WDC - wouldn't make the numbers they set out internally, unless the park is routinely at capacity and there's a need to alleviate some crowding or guest dissatisfaction.

In Epcot, that's not the case, so there needs to be a weenie that's going to draw more people in order to justify the expenditure, which means there has to be a ride or show involved. The Festivals are a cheap way to boost and spread attendance numbers - the kiosks are built already, the operational logistics are pretty much by the book now. The product (food, alcohol, art, merchandise) is resold, so it's pure profit on the Festivals. A land pavilion is a major capital expenditure where the return is spread over a number of years. If you're just adding shopping and dining, in addition to the restaurants and shops selling their product, you also have add the not insignificant costs of building an entirely new themed environment and backstage, plus setting up the staffing pipeline and back of house that goes with it. In this case, shopping and dining won't make the numbers work if it's not increasing the park's attendance by a certain amount.

 

[articos]

One more point to make. If an expansion is not paid for by the WDC, then they look at not only the numbers but the guest satisfaction ratings. If it's not paid for internally, there is still going to be a push to build an attraction, because that will boost satisfaction ratings and capacity, with the added bonus of someone else footing the bill. Those expansion pads won't sit empty forever.

 

[GoofGoof]

ad nauseam.



I think it's slightly different - I think we don't agree on how rigid that theme needs to be.



Assuming that is fact - it is history. There is no telling if Walt lived to today or if Disney was run by original imagineers & bean counters what they would be doing today. Walt had his head in the clouds and his feet on the ground at the same time IMO. If you're telling me Epcot was never meant to evolve - I think we can both agree that's the opposite of what was intended. Expanding a business will necessarily entail sometimes uncomfortable compromise at certain levels. There will be some trade-off of artistic integrity for commercialism. You see that in virtually all the arts - especially music & movies. Disney was not snobby stuff, he was pop culture.

Any business owner starts out with a vision or hypothesis. And then they adapt it. There are adaptations made at the planning stages, the building stages, and then the refining stages - based on laws/regulations, based on practical restrictions, and based on sales/public response.

There is no telling what those with perhaps the most credibility (early Disney people) would have done in today's circumstances. Even if they expressed an opinion in writing in 1965 or 1975, those opinions were expressed outside of today's circumstances.

But we don't have to guess what the Disney of today would do - they did it. And like any business has to make decisions and evolve, they decided to put the Frozen ride (which took place in Norway in the animated film) into their representation of Norway in Epcot.

One can argue all the fine points of whether or not it "belongs." One will never know if they are "correct" based on the supposed opinions of folks no longer alive or no longer involved. The bottom line for me: It's in Disney World. Therefore, it's OK. That is the one unifying thing here - they're all Disney World representations - of stories, of countries, etc.

And of course money factors into these decisions, it's completely idealistic and naive to think otherwise. It would be malpractice for them to not consider it.

Epcot is old. Some people don't even go to World Showcase or just walk through the main walkway and never fully explore it. If it takes a refresh that adds more rides and Disney characters to generate more interest, cool. It was what it was. It will be what it will be. It will work or not work based on foot traffic, not based on the opinions of a few on a message board. I can't imagine the average parkgoer thinks like this. And I can't imagine Walt would cater to superfans with a sense of entitlement.

As I suspect others do, I took World Showcase in stages (and all of Disney World, really.) Your first visit, you want to rush through and see everything. When you're younger, you don't have the money to do much table service. Then you come back with annual passes and can leisurely explore more detail, more spaces, more shops, and nicer restaurants. You throw in some tours here and there. It's great that WDW has so much that you can't take it all in even in a few trips - and it's ever evolving to add more.

But I've always thought it was missing attractions. And apparently more attractions had been planned, so I'm not alone.

Whether those attractions are educational, representative of their host countries to x degree, or strongly or even loosely tied-in IP's, I think is where we start splitting hairs. I think there's room for all of those approaches; and I think I am personally more ready to accept Disney IP's throughout Disney World. I also think yes, it makes the "educational" more approachable. Not all of us are complete nerds. I am never going to Norway. I don't care a lot about Norway, and I don't have any reason to learn more than the very very basic basics about Norway. I went on Maelstrom most times we visited Epcot. I enjoyed it. I watched the Frozen movie once. I liked the Frozen ride better than Maelstrom. That's not an intellectual dissertation. That's a feeling. That's what it should be, for me.



Me too!

All of this may be true and I don't want to take up any more time going through it. All I will say is this wasn't the discussion we were having when you originally quoted my post. We were talking about whether it fit with the original theme. Like I said pages ago if you don't like the original theme or are OK with deviating from it that's fine and it's a valid opinion. In any case I've said all I can say on the topic...ad nauseam apparently

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Yes, Brazil is more than that, and I definitely didn't say it was not more than that. However a few fitting and fun part of that country's culture to highlight in street shows and shops would be- Soccer, Samba, Food (empanadas, meats, etc..I think a table service churrascaria would be awesome in Epcot) Drinks (caipirinhas etc). Since all of the above are a big part of the culture.

Of course you'd rather argue rather than admit that those things may be fitting in a Brazil pavilion. To each their own.

...like every country representation isn't already a caricature of the country it represents! (Reminder: It's Disney World! None of it is "real!")

In order to take offense to your brief summary of highlights for a Brazilian pavilion, one would have to actively try to be offended. You said nothing offensive, and clearly know a lot more about Brazil than I. (And you clearly have more patience than I.)

Some people on these boards need to realize there are intelligent people with dissenting opinions who are not easily discounted or dismissed. That does not make them troublemakers or trolls - or wrong. It makes them individuals who think for themselves. Be wary of groupthink.

 

[Mike S]

...like every country representation isn't already a caricature of the country it represents! (Reminder: It's Disney World! None of it is "real!")

In order to take offense to your brief summary of highlights for a Brazilian pavilion, one would have to actively try to be offended. You said nothing offensive, and clearly know a lot more about Brazil than I. (And you clearly have more patience than I.)

Some people on these boards need to realize there are intelligent people with dissenting opinions who are not easily discounted or dismissed. That does not make them troublemakers or trolls - or wrong. It makes them individuals who think for themselves. Be wary of groupthink.

When they do it repeatedly in multiple different threads, it kind of does.

 

[wm49rs]

...like every country representation isn't already a caricature of the country it represents! (Reminder: It's Disney World! None of it is "real!")

In order to take offense to your brief summary of highlights for a Brazilian pavilion, one would have to actively try to be offended. You said nothing offensive, and clearly know a lot more about Brazil than I. (And you clearly have more patience than I.)

Some people on these boards need to realize there are intelligent people with dissenting opinions who are not easily discounted or dismissed. That does not make them troublemakers or trolls - or wrong. It makes them individuals who think for themselves. Be wary of groupthink.

And that mindset works in the opposite direction....

 

[21stamps]

...like every country representation isn't already a caricature of the country it represents! (Reminder: It's Disney World! None of it is "real!")

In order to take offense to your brief summary of highlights for a Brazilian pavilion, one would have to actively try to be offended. You said nothing offensive, and clearly know a lot more about Brazil than I. (And you clearly have more patience than I.)

Some people on these boards need to realize there are intelligent people with dissenting opinions who are not easily discounted or dismissed. That does not make them troublemakers or trolls - or wrong. It makes them individuals who think for themselves. Be wary of groupthink.

A little off topic- but, there is a fabulous little hole in the wall Brazilian market in Pompano Beach...if you're ever or having a bbq..stop there first! They have the most amazing beef-picanha. Slice it into single tapas style servings, sprinkle with a bit of sea salt, place on the grill for just a couple of minutes. Omg DELISH. I'm craving it now.lol Sometimes I really miss that area.

Back on topic... I agree that it would be very hard to actually be offended by what I said. Which is why I asked for opinions on what would fit "better" in a supposed Brazil pavilion. As much as it pains me to say this, because I am NOT a Brazil soccer fan, the fact is- they are the ONLY country to have been in EVERY World Cup. Ya know, the most widely and globally watched tournament of any sport in the world. So yeah, I would hope that somewhere their soccer team would be shown a nod.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

When they do it repeatedly in multiple different threads, it kind of does.

No, it absolutely doesn't. One could just as easily flip it and say those holding the opposite opinion were. Nobody is obligated to conform to the consensus of others. Someone who won't back down from their opinion is not a nuisance.

When people keep repeating that Frozen did not take place in Norway, they should be prepared to be contradicted.

As I've said before, I have no problem with differing opinions presented as opinions. It's when they are presented in a condescending manner as incontrovertible fact that is offensive to me.

My primary question is not whether or not Ratatouille or Beauty & The Beast are the perfect thematic insertion in France. My primary concern is whether a revision or addition will be GOOD in it's own right. Some here think The Three Caballeros is a better thematic fit than Frozen. I think - regardless of whether or not it is - it's a pretty lame ride overall as far as the screens and story go, until you get closer to the middle/end/Small World-esque parts. And I still go on it often, and look for things I haven't noticed before, etc. In fact, this is an example (to me) of a ride where the characters really aren't helping because the ride itself is so blah (because of the boring screen scenes.)

So if Ratatouille is a good ride (and again, I'd rather not copy an existing ride from another park, I'd rather make Epcot more special than that) then I can suspend disbelief enough to see that it "belongs" well enough in the make-believe France at Disney World.

Please note that I put all my opinions as opinions. I'm not here obnoxiously "schooling" people as if I am a Disney family member. These are my thoughts to which I am entitled. Agree or disagree, minority/majority, etc.

 

[Mike S]

No, it absolutely doesn't. One could just as easily flip it and say those holding the opposite opinion were. Nobody is obligated to conform to the consensus of others. Someone who won't back down from their opinion is not a nuisance.

When people keep repeating that Frozen did not take place in Norway, they should be prepared to be contradicted.

As I've said before, I have no problem with differing opinions presented as opinions. It's when they are presented in a condescending manner as incontrovertible fact that is offensive to me.

My primary question is not whether or not Ratatouille or Beauty & The Beast are the perfect thematic insertion in France. My primary concern is whether a revision or addition will be GOOD in it's own right. Some here think The Three Caballeros is a better thematic fit than Frozen. I think - regardless of whether or not it is - it's a pretty lame ride overall as far as the screens and story go, until you get closer to the middle/end/Small World-esque parts. And I still go on it often, and look for things I haven't noticed before, etc. In fact, this is an example (to me) of a ride where the characters really aren't helping because the ride itself is so blah (because of the boring screen scenes.)

So if Ratatouille is a good ride (and again, I'd rather not copy an existing ride from another park, I'd rather make Epcot more special than that) then I can suspend disbelief enough to see that it "belongs" well enough in the make-believe France at Disney World.

Please note that I put all my opinions as opinions. I'm not here obnoxiously "schooling" people as if I am a Disney family member. These are my thoughts to which I am entitled. Agree or disagree, minority/majority, etc.

She goes into threads purposely riling people up and making all focus on her. There are people here who have differing opinions and stick to them but no one else does what she does. It's annoying to read threads and see nothing but back and forth between her and others page after page.

I wish this was more like Orlando United. A very nasty troll recently took over a thread and got a swift one month ban.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, it absolutely doesn't. One could just as easily flip it and say those holding the opposite opinion were. Nobody is obligated to conform to the consensus of others. Someone who won't back down from their opinion is not a nuisance.

When people keep repeating that Frozen did not take place in Norway, they should be prepared to be contradicted.

As I've said before, I have no problem with differing opinions presented as opinions. It's when they are presented in a condescending manner as incontrovertible fact that is offensive to me.

My primary question is not whether or not Ratatouille or Beauty & The Beast are the perfect thematic insertion in France. My primary concern is whether a revision or addition will be GOOD in it's own right. Some here think The Three Caballeros is a better thematic fit than Frozen. I think - regardless of whether or not it is - it's a pretty lame ride overall as far as the screens and story go, until you get closer to the middle/end/Small World-esque parts. And I still go on it often, and look for things I haven't noticed before, etc. In fact, this is an example (to me) of a ride where the characters really aren't helping because the ride itself is so blah (because of the boring screen scenes.)

So if Ratatouille is a good ride (and again, I'd rather not copy an existing ride from another park, I'd rather make Epcot more special than that) then I can suspend disbelief enough to see that it "belongs" well enough in the make-believe France at Disney World.

Please note that I put all my opinions as opinions. I'm not here obnoxiously "schooling" people as if I am a Disney family member. These are my thoughts to which I am entitled. Agree or disagree, minority/majority, etc.

If all you care about is the quality of the attraction, then why does it matter if other people are concerned with the theme? If Disney opened an amazing new France Pavilion attraction that everyone here said was perfectly in theme, where exactly do you lose in that scenario?

 

[Big C 73]

N
My primary question is not whether or not Ratatouille or Beauty & The Beast are the perfect thematic insertion in France. My primary concern is whether a revision or addition will be GOOD in it's own right. Some here think The Three Caballeros is a better thematic fit than Frozen. I think - regardless of whether or not it is - it's a pretty lame ride overall as far as the screens and story go, until you get closer to the middle/end/Small World-esque parts. And I still go on it often, and look for things I haven't noticed before, etc. In fact, this is an example (to me) of a ride where the characters really aren't helping because the ride itself is so blah (because of the boring screen scenes.)

So if Ratatouille is a good ride (and again, I'd rather not copy an existing ride from another park, I'd rather make Epcot more special than that) then I can suspend disbelief enough to see that it "belongs" well enough in the make-believe France at Disney World.
.

I would like to assert (at the minimalist value as being hypothetical), that it is essential that an attraction is harmonious thematically to compose a whole. The standard notion of many subsidiaries in their summation composing a entity, each equally distributing a dictum and environment derived from such is essential, is the principle. If this is to be expelled, then any thematic cohesion, at least to a formative standard, is lost. The attraction is then a singular thing, either predominating an environment to either deflect from the deplorable condition thereof, or degrading a positive environment. The environment within itself is to be subjected to the same principle. It is essential to assume the founding fundaments of a particular matter are to be adhered to as constituents of preservation and thusly progression. EPCOT Center is a subsidiary, yet a contributing component to the entirety of Walt Disney World, yet it is to adhere to its own dictums within its subsidiary existence. The same theorem is applicable to all location within the property. Each component, within its adequate means, comprises (once more) a strategic, yet organic, nature within itself.

 

[Cesar R M]

What's educational about Three Caballeros? We pretty much always ride it. There's stereotyping and looking for Donald, and a really bad actor playing a chef whirling his head around pretending to see something that isn't there. ( or maybe he's a so-so actor and they messed up on the technical side.)

This!
That has been my gripe all along.
The Mexican pavilion seems to be more of a "Where to find Donald" than "Go check Mexico".

Exactly! Look how much tourism went up in New Zealand after the Lord of the rings movies came out, and they weren't even fictionally set in New Zealand, to my knowledge. People just liked what they saw, there may have been a bit of promotion, and an increased interest in a beautiful country – just goes to show when you are trying to shoehorn education into everything, people learn things when something is naturally inviting.

Disagree, as others already said..
The filmed areas DO EXIST, they are visitable. You can prance around them, visit them, walk around them. Theres even Hobbiton in real life!

 

[Cesar R M]

It can be used, just with precaution. Due to the proximity to the marina and the explosives in that area it would have to be blast proof, as it were, and internal in the correct places (like Mexico) as opposed to say the UK.

This has caused issue with past plans but may be able to be fixed for future plans.

Explosives? Thats the area where they keep all the fireworks and one of the launch areas?

 

[Cesar R M]

Ok..I'm so lost. Half of this thread has been about rides/themes/characters fitting or not fitting in WS. I've already stated my opinion on Frozen several times- I'm indifferent.
But an actual pavilion celebrating a culture and nation with good (non ride based) fun is a bad idea?
I give up trying to figure out the goal posts that people set on this site.

I think the gripe is the actual LACK Of real attractions.
All that has been added to World Showcase, is Frozen (which doesnt fit). And a lot of M&G's, and Festivals of Food and Drink.
They are removing more attractions/rides than they add.

China? AK's Asia looks more like India/Tibet to me.

Edit: scratch that. I thought Tibet was a country but now I looked it up.

I guess its still in debate.. considering how the Chinese government hates the Tibetan culture and religion, specially the Dalai Lama's leadership.

 

[Daveeeeed]

Everyone, please stop responding to this person. ^

Thank you.

Not a bad idea. Almost every thread seems to get derailed when she enters it.

I think I am just going to end the nonsense for me by using the magical block button for the first time.