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

[Princess Leia]

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.

So... this would be okay if Disney made an Australian pavilion and put everything in the Opera House? Or (I know this may be too similar to Mexico) an Egyptian pavilion hidden inside of a pyramid?

 

[marni1971]

So... this would be okay if Disney made an Australian pavilion and put everything in the Opera House? Or (I know this may be too similar to Mexico) an Egyptian pavilion hidden inside of a pyramid?

As I understand things, for arguments sake, yes. Some structure that would protect guests and casts should the worst happen.

 

[RoysCabin]

Look, most of us don't want IPs in Epcot. I don't. I want what they're capable of doing (unique, original rides that fit what Epcot/Epcot Center used to be and can be again if given a little effort), but they're here and they are going to keep coming. I'd rather have the Rat than nothing at all. I'd love Beauty and the Beast but it belongs in Fantasyland, regardless of whether it's "the better ride". But that's just my opinion although even that fits better than Frozen. If Ratatouille weren't a movie and a ride they just came up with we wouldn't even be discussing it. We can protest IPs (and they clearly don't care if we do or not) or accept that they're coming and discuss the more "acceptable" option. At least they aren't, as of now, ripping out Impressions. That's a plus. As Martin has sadly stated, Epcot Center is dead. We can talk about how they can be that way again, and I agree they can, but they aren't doing that. They're throwing in IPs. And who decided IP was a dirty word anyway? It's not always a bad thing, it's just their implementation and locations typically suck.

It does open up an interesting discussion concerning when "IP" can be considered a "dirty word", I believe. Simply using Disney characters isn't the end of the world in and of itself, but to borrow from your statement concerning it being a matter of implementation, it comes down to whether the use of those characters overshadows the rest of the pavilion, or compliments it. I wouldn't say that Gran Fiesta Tour is a perfect ride by any stretch, but at the very least the ride falls more onto the "compliments the overall pavilion" side of the ledger, in my opinion, whereas Frozen would go the other way, and I fear Ratatouille would, as well. It isn't so much about educating guests in the pavilions, though I do appreciate when they do that, rather it's more about inspiring them; inspiring them to check out, say, French architecture, or Japanese mythology, or flat-out traveling to one of the countries there. The newer rides could be decent, but does it overshadow that type of somewhat real-world inspiration and instead seek to inspire buying more movie tie-in merchandise?

Granted, like you cite Martin saying, the old EPCOT Center, sadly, isn't coming back, so we do have to work with the hand we're dealt, but this is why I've often been of the mind that I don't really dislike most of the World Showcase pavilions getting smaller C or D level rides/attractions, ones that flow better with the surrounding pavilion rather than sticking out; I kind of refer to that as the Honey I Shrunk the Audience problem, where an attraction (in this case HIStA) was well done and popular, but poor layout/placement/lack of cohesion and flow with the rest of the pavilion led to people not getting on line for the original Journey Into Imagination, leading to the original version of the ride being changed to fit HIStA.

 

[Kman101]

It does open up an interesting discussion concerning when "IP" can be considered a "dirty word", I believe. Simply using Disney characters isn't the end of the world in and of itself, but to borrow from your statement concerning it being a matter of implementation, it comes down to whether the use of those characters overshadows the rest of the pavilion, or compliments it. I wouldn't say that Gran Fiesta Tour is a perfect ride by any stretch, but at the very least the ride falls more onto the "compliments the overall pavilion" side of the ledger, in my opinion, whereas Frozen would go the other way, and I fear Ratatouille would, as well. It isn't so much about educating guests in the pavilions, though I do appreciate when they do that, rather it's more about inspiring them; inspiring them to check out, say, French architecture, or Japanese mythology, or flat-out traveling to one of the countries there. The newer rides could be decent, but does it overshadow that type of somewhat real-world inspiration and instead seek to inspire buying more movie tie-in merchandise?

Granted, like you cite Martin saying, the old EPCOT Center, sadly, isn't coming back, so we do have to work with the hand we're dealt, but this is why I've often been of the mind that I don't really dislike most of the World Showcase pavilions getting smaller C or D level rides/attractions, ones that flow better with the surrounding pavilion rather than sticking out; I kind of refer to that as the Honey I Shrunk the Audience problem, where an attraction (in this case HIStA) was well done and popular, but poor layout/placement/lack of cohesion and flow with the rest of the pavilion led to people not getting on line for the original Journey Into Imagination, leading to the original version of the ride being changed to fit HIStA.

Well said.

I just think if Ratatouille - The Ride were a fresh new idea and no movie existed, folks would eat it up and think it would be a great addition. I mean, they are keeping Impressions. I don't think the ride would take away from the pavilion at all, just based on the the ride itself and the movie. I get what you're saying about Gran Fiesta Tour. It doesn't really do that much harm. Nemo wasn't the worst idea but the whole "where's Nemo??" is lame. It could have been more. But the pavilion itself is still basically in-tact. Same for Mexico.

I actually don't mind having the pavilions serve as sort of a gateway into these fantasy worlds. But that's me. I understand why many panic and dislike the idea. It's tough. They could and should develop original rides for these pavilions, but since we know they aren't, then I'm going to talk about what they should do with what they have.

I'd not be a happy camper if Inside Out replaced Figment, even though I loved the movie. For an example. I'm mixed on Energy being replaced by Guardians. It's better than them replacing our Tower with it, but I still don't think it's the right choice unless they completely overhaul Future World and give it a new name and direction.

With Epcot you just aren't going to please everyone. They need to find a way to maintain the original feel of Epcot Center but updating it.

Big Hero 6 taking over Innoventions would be a decent start but you'd still have people lamenting the characters, that's not going to go away.

 

[Princess Leia]

Well said.

I just think if Ratatouille - The Ride were a fresh new idea and no movie existed, folks would eat it up and think it would be a great addition. I mean, they are keeping Impressions. I don't think the ride would take away from the pavilion at all, just based on the the ride itself and the movie. I get what you're saying about Gran Fiesta Tour. It doesn't really do that much harm. Nemo wasn't the worst idea but the whole "where's Nemo??" is lame. It could have been more. But the pavilion itself is still basically in-tact. Same for Mexico.

I actually don't mind having the pavilions serve as sort of a gateway into these fantasy worlds. But that's me. I understand why many panic and dislike the idea. It's tough. They could and should develop original rides for these pavilions, but since we know they aren't, then I'm going to talk about what they should do with what they have.

I'd not be a happy camper if Inside Out replaced Figment, even though I loved the movie. For an example. I'm mixed on Energy being replaced by Guardians. It's better than them replacing our Tower with it, but I still don't think it's the right choice unless they completely overhaul Future World and give it a new name and direction.

With Epcot you just aren't going to please everyone. They need to find a way to maintain the original feel of Epcot Center but updating it.

Big Hero 6 taking over Innoventions would be a decent start but you'd still have people lamenting the characters, that's not going to go away.

Unfortunately, I see some of this as compromise? Like, Guardians goes to Energy to keep that particular IP out of the Tower. And maybe ditto with BH6? That could go to Innoventions so Japan remains 'San Fransokyo-less' (if that property is ever shoehorned into Japan I will be royally ticked off).

 

[Kman101]

Unfortunately, I see some of this as compromise? Like, Guardians goes to Energy to keep that particular IP out of the Tower. And maybe ditto with BH6? That could go to Innoventions so Japan remains 'San Fransokyo-less' (if that property is ever shoehorned into Japan I will be royally ticked off).

I'd be as ticked off as you if BH6, and I loved the movie, was shoe-horned into Japan. Just build Mt. Fuji! LOL. But I won't hold my breath.

I still don't even trust them to greenlight a ride for France. They seem to look for any reason to not greenlight something or postpone something.

If they want something open by 2021 they need to get started next year because it takes them 3 years to do anything. While not three years look how long Frozen took in Norway. It should have been a brand new build at that point.

 

[21stamps]

It does open up an interesting discussion concerning when "IP" can be considered a "dirty word", I believe. Simply using Disney characters isn't the end of the world in and of itself, but to borrow from your statement concerning it being a matter of implementation, it comes down to whether the use of those characters overshadows the rest of the pavilion, or compliments it. I wouldn't say that Gran Fiesta Tour is a perfect ride by any stretch, but at the very least the ride falls more onto the "compliments the overall pavilion" side of the ledger, in my opinion, whereas Frozen would go the other way, and I fear Ratatouille would, as well. It isn't so much about educating guests in the pavilions, though I do appreciate when they do that, rather it's more about inspiring them; inspiring them to check out, say, French architecture, or Japanese mythology, or flat-out traveling to one of the countries there. The newer rides could be decent, but does it overshadow that type of somewhat real-world inspiration and instead seek to inspire buying more movie tie-in merchandise?

Granted, like you cite Martin saying, the old EPCOT Center, sadly, isn't coming back, so we do have to work with the hand we're dealt, but this is why I've often been of the mind that I don't really dislike most of the World Showcase pavilions getting smaller C or D level rides/attractions, ones that flow better with the surrounding pavilion rather than sticking out; I kind of refer to that as the Honey I Shrunk the Audience problem, where an attraction (in this case HIStA) was well done and popular, but poor layout/placement/lack of cohesion and flow with the rest of the pavilion led to people not getting on line for the original Journey Into Imagination, leading to the original version of the ride being changed to fit HIStA.

I agree with this so much. Most of it anyway. I think this is where the heart of the main two differing opinions lies.
What people see as inspiring can be different, I don't personally think Anna and Elsa or a Frozen ride takes away from or prevents someone to be inspired in Norway, because it's Disney World, so there's kind of a pass there to mesh the two. You walk through a pavilion enjoying the food, talking about the culture, tasting the food. Then you see two of "your" favorite characters in a ride. The overall atmosphere of Norway is still there, the ride is seperate, fictional, but still generally related. A little girl or boy could be tempted to try or learn something new as a result of their favorite character there.(My opinion)
I feel the same about Mexico. I don't think Donald Duck and crew are inspiring, but I think it's a cute ride in an inspirational pavilion.
I can sit, shop, walk, or eat in the Morocco pavilion, I can close my eyes as picture me back in Turkey...the sites the smells, the music, the Turkish coffee sold in the shops, for me personally it's a moment to take me back,( and also reminds of how much I want to visit Morocco.lol) Seeing Jasmine there doesn't distract or take away, she adds the Disney whimsy, and somehow it all blends together.

Maybe Jurassic World could be a comparison. Fake story. Fake dinosaur. But how many kids did it inspire to learn about dinosaurs? I couldn't buy enough books on real dinosaurs to satisfy my son for quite some time.

Inspiration can come from many places, and in Disney the Fantasy can combine with the reality, without one taking away from the other. Again, my opinion.

I think that the crux of where people differ regarding this topic.

 

[Bandini]

I'd be as ticked off as you if BH6, and I loved the movie, was shoe-horned into Japan. Just build Mt. Fuji! LOL. But I won't hold my breath.

I still don't even trust them to greenlight a ride for France. They seem to look for any reason to not greenlight something or postpone something.

If they want something open by 2021 they need to get started next year because it takes them 3 years to do anything. While not three years look how long Frozen took in Norway. It should have been a brand new build at that point.

It's gotten to the point where putting anything in EPCOT is better than letting it continue to stagnate. I think BH6 would be great in the wonders of life pavilion, since it was a built as a mechanical medic. Robotics and health.

 

[Kman101]

It's gotten to the point where putting anything in EPCOT is better than letting it continue to stagnate. I think BH6 would be great in the wonders of life pavilion, since it was a built as a mechanical medic. Robotics and health.

That's true. Wonders of Life could have housed both Inside Out and BH6. Inside Out in the Cranium Command theater and BH6 in the simulators, though those haven't been there for quite a while so that's a moot point, but still ... SO many possibilities for this park. Yet they seem to even be in no rush to shove in Guardians. I mean, they KNOW the park needs help yet they still ... wait. Just put the ride in! Spend the money now. Not like they can't afford to.

Just like the Mickey ride in DHS. Just build a new area for it! Move the Star Wars stuff and put it in the Animation Courtyard. GMR needs updating, not a replacement. They just don't want to spend the time or the money. It's sad. They can and they would have if this were run the way it used to be run. This is the company that WOULD HAVE moved Small World to Epcot if it suited a bigger purpose and they needed the room at the MK.

 

[21stamps]

Wow.

And not in the good way.

Which is why I went on an ignore spree.
If a small group of people can "claim" to be offended by a suggestion to display a few highlights of a country's culture. Yet think a comment like the one you quoted is acceptable... the ignorance there runs so deep that a real conversation would never be possibly with said people, and I'd rather not even read their words.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Which is why I went on an ignore spree.

It's not about you. You're about to make it about you. Don't.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I just think if Ratatouille - The Ride were a fresh new idea and no movie existed, folks would eat it up and think it would be a great addition

That way of thinking blows my mind.

For all the talk about authenticity - how about personal authenticity? Why not just admit what we like instead of forcing ourselves to adhere to arbitrary rules?

Please tell me you see the silliness in the notion that if the ride were not based on a movie, it would be considered great, but the fact that it's based on a [Disney] movie somehow makes it "less than?" Or less original?

Maybe Jurassic World could be a comparison. Fake story. Fake dinosaur. But how many kids did it inspire to learn about dinosaurs?

It's an excellent comparison. I was still in high school, and our science teacher made a huge deal out of the newer scientific evidence that was in the film that challenged conventional ideas (namely, that dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than reptiles, etc.)

And for me now as an adult, the Jurassic movies are a fun roller-coaster ride. If I learn a minor tidbit here or there, great, but that's not my primary objective.

Movies (and theme park attractions) can hit several audiences at once, and Disney/Pixar have become known for this. They can make an animated film that appeals to two (or more) audiences at once - the kids and the parents.

There's no reason a country pavilion in Epcot can't appeal to various types of Disney fans at the same time - those interested in experiencing the culture (or a Disneyfied version of it - let's remember these are not authentic representations, either) can focus on the shops and restaurants and mini-landmarks. Those more interested in IP attractions have their options as well. I couldn't help noticing the Frozen ride in Norway is very subtle from the outside - there's no giant plastic Olaf sticking up from the top of the building.

Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion on these boards, I have no use for the country films. I feel they are a waste of time when I could be doing something more fun, and I can watch similar things anywhere, anytime. I often go back to my first visit and first impressions, and I thought they were a cop-out rather than a "real attraction."

Side note: gondola ride in Italy, please and thank you.

Just like the Mickey ride in DHS. Just build a new area for it! Move the Star Wars stuff and put it in the Animation Courtyard. GMR needs updating, not a replacement.

Completely agree with this.

 

[Kman101]

Not sure what your issue was with my Rat ride comment? I've said before I want the ride and like the ride and have no problem with it in the pavilion. I'm not forcing myself to adhere to anything. So can you clarify @Tony the Tigger ?

 

[KrazyKat]

Built it and THEY will come...

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Not sure what your issue was with my Rat ride comment? I've said before I want the ride and like the ride and have no problem with it in the pavilion. I'm not forcing myself to adhere to anything. So can you clarify @Tony the Tigger ?

Yes, and thank you for responding the way you did. I apologize if my response came out wrong.

My issue is not with you(!) It's with the "folks" in your statement:

"I just think if Ratatouille - The Ride were a fresh new idea and no movie existed, folks would eat it up and think it would be a great addition"

I am interpreting that - I think correctly(?) - as you saying the people would like the Ratatouille ride in WS if it had just been invented for the parks and not based on a movie.

If that's the case, it immediately hits me as twisted! If the ride is a good ride, then it's a good ride. If it would fit in WS if it was not based on a movie - then it fits in WS! Is it being disqualified because it's based on a movie? Wasn't the Disney movie an original idea?

I live my life as authentically as is reasonable. I don't conform to rules for the sake of rules. It strikes me as fake. It's also often counterproductive, too easy (no thought required) and you end up sacrificing experience for rules. I get that some people prefer to live that way, I just don't.

There is balance in life. Balance between what is idealistic and what is realistic.

I hope that was a better explanation - I'm a little rushed - already late to run some errands.

 

[Kman101]

Yes, and thank you for responding the way you did. I apologize if my response came out wrong.

My issue is not with you(!) It's with the "folks" in your statement:

"I just think if Ratatouille - The Ride were a fresh new idea and no movie existed, folks would eat it up and think it would be a great addition"

I am interpreting that - I think correctly(?) - as you saying the people would like the Ratatouille ride in WS if it had just been invented for the parks and not based on a movie.

If that's the case, it immediately hits me as twisted! If the ride is a good ride, then it's a good ride. If it would fit in WS if it was not based on a movie - then it fits in WS! Is it being disqualified because it's based on a movie? Wasn't the Disney movie an original idea?

I live my life as authentically as is reasonable. I don't conform to rules for the sake of rules. It strikes me as fake. It's also often counterproductive, too easy (no thought required) and you end up sacrificing experience for rules. I get that some people prefer to live that way, I just don't.

There is balance in life. Balance between what is idealistic and what is realistic.

I hope that was a better explanation - I'm a little rushed - already late to run some errands.

Yep. Thank you! We're on the same page, LOL. I didn't think it was in regards to me so that's why I got a little confused over it.

 

[21stamps]

It's not about you. You're about to make it about you. Don't.

My comment was about what I think is right or wrong, hypocritical, and flat out ignorant. Maybe one person will stop using decades old disgusting phrases, maybe they won't. I can't control that, but I can control what I read.
That's what I was expressing, because that's how I feel. The end.

Yes, and thank you for responding the way you did. I apologize if my response came out wrong.

My issue is not with you(!) It's with the "folks" in your statement:

"I just think if Ratatouille - The Ride were a fresh new idea and no movie existed, folks would eat it up and think it would be a great addition"

I am interpreting that - I think correctly(?) - as you saying the people would like the Ratatouille ride in WS if it had just been invented for the parks and not based on a movie.

If that's the case, it immediately hits me as twisted! If the ride is a good ride, then it's a good ride. If it would fit in WS if it was not based on a movie - then it fits in WS! Is it being disqualified because it's based on a movie? Wasn't the Disney movie an original idea?

I live my life as authentically as is reasonable. I don't conform to rules for the sake of rules. It strikes me as fake. It's also often counterproductive, too easy (no thought required) and you end up sacrificing experience for rules. I get that some people prefer to live that way, I just don't.

There is balance in life. Balance between what is idealistic and what is realistic.

I hope that was a better explanation - I'm a little rushed - already late to run some errands.

I think that was a perfect way to put it. Agree.

 

[Gomer]

That way of thinking blows my mind.

For all the talk about authenticity - how about personal authenticity? Why not just admit what we like instead of forcing ourselves to adhere to arbitrary rules?

Please tell me you see the silliness in the notion that if the ride were not based on a movie, it would be considered great, but the fact that it's based on a [Disney] movie somehow makes it "less than?" Or less original?

I'll take a stab at that.

Its because for some, the end result isn't the only factor. If Rat was produced exactly the same, but there had never been a movie on which it was based, you are correct that the ride itself would be no better or worse than it is now. But my feeling on the ride's existence would change because the context would be different.

The general consensus is that Rat is a decent ride and a tolerable fit even among purists for the France pavilion due to the content of the movie, right? By building it as an IP tie in it represents the idea that Imagineers are still restricted in what they can dream up. They have specific merchandising and IP factors on which they can build their rides. When you are restricted, the art will more times than not be less creative. It is easy to become derivative. Just as when they make a remake of a movie. Yes the end result may be decent, but they most often reuse ideas from the original source material and therefore have a certain staleness to them. Most damage though, in either of these cases, comes in what we are not seeing more than what we are. How many great movies aren't being made and how many great attractions are not being built because of the restrictive parameters in which the artists work. Rat may be good, but what wasn't built there that could have been? Perhaps the next Imagination or the next Haunted Mansion wasn't thought up because we just reused and existing idea. Once you restrict that creativity to a small subset of ideas, it dilutes the output.

You can easily take the stance that, if the end ride is good what harm can something that doesn't exist have? And that is a fine stance for the average consumer of these things to take. The average consumer visits these attractions for entertainment, and then treats them as nothing but a fond memory. There is no vested interest in the industry or its direction. It is a purely superficial enjoyment. And there is nothing wrong with that. It is the way the vast majority of guests will experience these attractions.

But for enthusiasts who have an interest in the direction of the industry, future content, and the sustainability of high quality output, those intangible factors mean a great deal. It's easy to dismiss people with those priorities as naive "fanboys". But in reality "fanboys" are really just people whose obsession gives them a stake in the long term priorities of whatever industry over which they obsess. In the end, all of us here who criticize and complain about these things do so out of a desire for the survival of something we love. Some may call it silly or childish to care about these things so much. But as with most industries that sell something that isn't necessary to survival, without a subset of fans demanding high quality, the quality would continually drop. Every consumer product has their die hards, fanboys, or early adopters that hold their selected product to a higher standard than the average consumer. And it is always a contentious relationship between the business and those fans. But I think it is a healthy and necessary one to help a business not become stale or complacent. And that relationship in the end helps the average consumer to get a better product, even if they wouldn't have known what they were missing had it not been better.

 

[WildcatDen]

If they want something open by 2021 they need to get started next year because it takes them 3 years to do anything. While not three years look how long Frozen took in Norway. It should have been a brand new build at that point.

Taken with a block of salt, I would expect some activity to commence this year with a completion late 2019, early 2020 and then more 'stuff' in time for the 50th. I think the way it was worded, and we have heard this before, is if they 'wait' to have all the new stuff debut in 2021 for the 50th, then ALOT of people will just postpone their trip until then. . .

 

[Kman101]

Taken with a block of salt, I would expect some activity to commence this year with a completion late 2019, early 2020 and then more 'stuff' in time for the 50th. I think the way it was worded, and we have heard this before, is if they 'wait' to have all the new stuff debut in 2021 for the 50th, then ALOT of people will just postpone their trip until then. . .

Sounds good. As long as they seem to have a plan in mind. It just often comes off like they hem and haw and can't decide on what to do and then end up doing nothing, LOL. I understand why they stagger things (for marketing reasons, as well as spreading out the financials).

I also have to think they've learned some lessons from talking about Avatar in 2011 and then the Rivers of Light debacle, so we aren't getting that many announcements. They seem to be playing it more close to the vest. I know it's easy for me to say "just do it all now!" LOL but we all know they sat around and did nothing for a decade and are now playing massive catch up, and still not catching up because they take their time ... preaching to the choir, I know.

Really appreciate all of your information though! Thanks for sharing what you can