RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
It's kind of Norway, yeah. Personally I have no real problem with the attraction being there but I can see how others would. I was a Maelstrom fan, but Frozen is better.
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Reasons for supporting I.P.cot‽
- Thread starter Centeral
- Start date
It's kind of Norway, yeah. Personally I have no real problem with the attraction being there but I can see how others would. I was a Maelstrom fan, but Frozen is better.
Mickey5150
Well-Known Member
I.P.Cot? Is this a thread about Epcot bathrooms?
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
Model3 McQueen
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
WondersOfLife
Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
I prefer The original intentions for the theme park version of Epcot... but I’m not opposed to IPCOT, because I understand it’s what the general public wants.
justintheharris
Well-Known Member
I support IPCOT because the hard reality many Disney fans need to accept is that nobody liked EPCOT without characters. Take your nostalgia glasses off and realize that technology that was cool in 1983 is lame and dated in 2018. And given that every future world ride was based in technology with no characters, all of Epcot’s opening day rides would be silly today or require updates every 4 years which isn’t very practical. IPs actually increase the lifespan of EPCOT attractions. Nemo arguably saved the Seas pavilion quite honestly. Frozen gave Epcot a nice shot of life even though I have my reservations about its placement that I can overlook in 2016 but if it opened in 2022, I probably wouldn’t be able to.
Ps. Sorry guys but every “festival” at EPCOT is a gimmick to lure people into an otherwise uninteresting park. They’re the only reason epcot maintains any of its attendance these days.
Ps. Sorry guys but every “festival” at EPCOT is a gimmick to lure people into an otherwise uninteresting park. They’re the only reason epcot maintains any of its attendance these days.
BoarderPhreak
Well-Known Member
WWWD?
Lie there, staring at the casket liner.
BoarderPhreak
Well-Known Member
C'mon, we all know he's just chillin' out, Frozen style.
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
C'mon, we all know he's just chillin' out, Frozen style.
Only his head, the rest went the way of a Thantos snap
MinnieWaffles
Well-Known Member
sedati
Well-Known Member
Epcot Center began with a lot of ideals and ideas. This was then filtered through the lens of corporate sponsorships and their interests. I loved Epcot, but I have come to realize that the Epcot I visited wasn't quite the same as the one I was sold. The spirit of the Epcot of my dreams is the one you see in the first ten minutes of any of Martin's videos. The one that represents pure imagineering intent.
But we're never going to get that.
I don't see a huge problem taking the core ideas and filtering them through IP and Disney's own interests instead of those of an outside company.
For example, look at the ride we never got for the Living Seas. What scenario is more likely to get us something resembling the journey with Poseidon? One where United Technologies would rather have a circlevision preshow that is nothing but an ad (which admittedly had a great mood and music.) Or Disney's IP where say someone looks at it and asks if Poseidon could be swapped out for King Triton, Ariel's dad. Now, instead of a commercial we get a Little Mermaid giftshop at Seabase Alpha. But we get something more resembling the ride that was pitched.
I'm not saying IP is being used correctly, but I don't see how it has to be any worse.
I've made this joke before, but let's say before Energy got gutted a sponsorship pulled up with a load of cash, but that company was Huggies diapers. What kind of changes might the imagineers been forced to make to get those sweet, sweet corporate dollars?
But we're never going to get that.
I don't see a huge problem taking the core ideas and filtering them through IP and Disney's own interests instead of those of an outside company.
For example, look at the ride we never got for the Living Seas. What scenario is more likely to get us something resembling the journey with Poseidon? One where United Technologies would rather have a circlevision preshow that is nothing but an ad (which admittedly had a great mood and music.) Or Disney's IP where say someone looks at it and asks if Poseidon could be swapped out for King Triton, Ariel's dad. Now, instead of a commercial we get a Little Mermaid giftshop at Seabase Alpha. But we get something more resembling the ride that was pitched.
I'm not saying IP is being used correctly, but I don't see how it has to be any worse.
I've made this joke before, but let's say before Energy got gutted a sponsorship pulled up with a load of cash, but that company was Huggies diapers. What kind of changes might the imagineers been forced to make to get those sweet, sweet corporate dollars?
