Safe to panic now (Seas Holes!)

[epcot2004]

Hello uniformed, wrong-headed opinion... Do you ever stop for a moment to think about what you are saying? Cheaply, are you joking? You must be joking because that's the most illogical thing I have ever heard... Of course, I would hate to be the one to make the facts mess up your little reality, but look at the last few attractions Disney has opened, and the bank they have been dropping to fix up older attractions. A 100-million dollars was dropped on both Expedition:Everest, and Mission: Space, leveraging new technologies to tell stories that are appropriate to its location in the theme park...

Stop believing everything you read from uniformed "Fans" on the internet, think for yourself, and see the world around you

I thought everyone was entitled to their opinion here. :dazzle:

 

[wannab@dis]

I thought everyone was entitled to their opinion here. :dazzle:

Sure... when it's at least semi-valid... but your quote below as a blanket statement has zero basis in reality. Even if you don't like an attraction, I don't think it's a good statement.

That's how disney does everything these days. As cheaply and non-imaginative as possible.

 

[epcot2004]

As stated before, just my opinion. This is not my full-time job. I will continue to go down there because aside from my opinions we do still enjoy being there.

 

[planet7]

[Duplicate post. Posting Glitch. Move along. Nothing to see here...]

 

[planet7]

Problem is there are so many around here that say they are for change but against bad change... but they claim everything is change for the worse. What's the difference? It's all subjective.

First, I'll thank you not to lump me in with "everyone else" (as one person has already done implicitly). Second, your reasoning is faulty. You suggest that those who complain about the changes are against "all change", and are disingenuous in claiming that they're only against "change for the worse", since they complain about the majority of changes. Has it occurred to you that many of the changes are indeed for the worse? I've been around Disney for a very long time, and I've seen it all--the good, the bad, and the ugly. I've seen positive change and I've seen absolute disasters. There were disasters in Walt's time, there were disasters after his death, and have there have been more recent disasters. The reality--and what has so many people up in arms--is that the disasters in the last 10 years have been more frequent, more serious, and rarely rectified. Walt (usually) learned from his mistakes. His successors largely haven't. It's very safe to say, for example, that we wouldn't have Imagination in its current state under Walt's leadership.

As to being "subjective", yes and no. To a large extent, qualitative differences are not subjective. Something that is done poorly by all reasonable standards, is qualitatively different than something done with care, creativity, and craftsmanship. We all have our own opinions on what we like and don't like, but we can generally recognize differences in quality, even if it's in something that is otherwise not our taste.

On truly subjective matters, we still have a voice. If we never were able to voice our opinions here, there wouldn't be a whole lot to say, would there?

Walt is dead. It's about time people figure that out and quit invoking his name as a declaritive for or against their personal opinions.

Actually, the previous poster "invoked Walt". I simply responded within context, not to support or refute a specific action, but to convey that Walt showed vision and leadership that has been lacking for some time now. I don't think that Walt being dead makes him or his ideas irrelevant. He set the standards which made all that we enjoy now possible, and though he made a misstep here and there, he was right far more often than he was wrong. I just don't see that happening under the current regime. It ostensibly is changing, but we've yet to see any concrete results. The bottom line is, much of Eisner's reign was creatively bankrupt and that his relentless cost-cutting dramatically reduced the quality of "show". I don't think "invoking Walt", when Walt clearly had a better vision, is at all a bad thing.

If you don't like the new Land... fine. But also admit that most like it and guests are flocking there like never before. Sounds like success to me.

Again, you're drawing a conclusion which is not supported by the evidence. I think it's safe to say that people are flocking to Soarin', not to the cosmetic changes within the atrium.

G7

 

[planet7]

Hello uniformed, wrong-headed opinion... Do you ever stop for a moment to think about what you are saying? Cheaply, are you joking? You must be joking because that's the most illogical thing I have ever heard...

I try to avoid "getting personal" here (despite that gauntlet thrown out at this post, albeit at the feet of another poster)--but I keep seeing the same lack or reasoning ability in these posts. If you're going to post an opinion, post an opinion--but if you want to make a statement of fact, you should be able to back it better than this, and without the name-calling.

They may indeed have spent hundreds of millions (largely of other people's money) on certain attractions--but that by no means suggests that they lavish the same attention (let alone money) across the board. There has indeed been a staggering amount of work done "on the cheap" in the last ten years or so. Eisner himself frequently boasted about how he cut costs to the bone. Are you suggesting that you know more about what Disney did, than the man that was in charge of those changes?

G7

 

[planet7]

Mission: Space, leveraging new technologies to tell stories that are appropriate to its location in the theme park...

Please excuse me, while I take a moment to bandage myself from head to toe. It's the only way I can find to keep my flesh from crawling uncontrollably at such words a "leveraging new technologies".

So, what exactly is the "story" that Mission: Space tells? That you're going on a "training mission"? I'm sorry to break this to you, but that's an experience, not a "story". The best Disney attractions--from Pirates of the Caribbean to TZ Tower--are based on story. It's what creates an emotional connection with the guest, and what gives them repeatability. Mission: Space is a fun ride, I've been on it about eight times, and I enjoyed it. But it completely lacks story, emotional connection, and long-term repeatability. It's a thrill and little more. Once a bigger or better thrill comes along, it'll be forgotten. Attendance for the ride was already shockingly poor before they implemented the "green" version of the ride--in which that (excuse me while I tighten the bandages) "leveraged technology" is "de-leveraged".

G7

 

[planet7]

Not enough people make the comparison of paint on the wall with the Holocaust. Though my question is how come when I compared Wonders of Life to Terry Schiavo I got a ' and nobody cares about the trivialization of the extermination of millions? Out of current events, out of mind I guess.

I missed that one, and I'm quite curious to know how WOL and Shaivo are related. Can you direct me to the post?

G7

 

[planet7]

Totally agree Lee. I think the Land looks awesome....

Considering only the interior, what about it "looks awesome"? I truly am curious here, as I'm completely at a loss to see anything "awesome" about it, and would really like to know what others are seeing, that I apparently am missing.

G7

 

[Lee]

Considering only the interior, what about it "looks awesome"? I truly am curious here, as I'm completely at a loss to see anything "awesome" about it, and would really like to know what others are seeing, that I apparently am missing.
G7

Ummm...let's see....the carpet, the paint, the layout, the music, the overall ambience...pretty much every square inch is an improvement over what was there.

 

[planet7]

Ummm...let's see....the carpet, the paint, the layout, the music, the overall ambience...pretty much every square inch is an improvement over what was there.

I was looking for something more specific or substantive. Let's start with the paint. I didn't see much done with that. What is it about the paint? The carpet? The music, I don't even remember for the re-do--what is it? And what is it about the "overall ambience" (stick to things that were added/changed--not the skylights or ramps, for example) that differs significanltly or in a positive way from an ordinary airport terminal? That's what it looked like to me. I guess if you like airport terminals, it's a decent enough one. But what about it is at all imaginative, fanciful, attractive? What about it says to you that you're at Disney--and more specifically, THE LAND, and not in a nondescript airport?

Is it at all a space that feels inviting, making you want to linger and take in the "ambience"? If so, what gives it that "inviting" quality? In what area would you want to linger? How is the traffic flow improved? How have they thematically merged the Soarin' theme with The Land? How does any of it relate to the Living with the Land and Cirlce of Life?

This are legitemate questions, I really am trying to understand the appeal here, because I just don't get it.

G7

 

[mousermerf]

Well, I like the Land's re-do, but I am also the one who started this thread because I don't tihnk the Living Seas mural should be destroyed or torn down.

About the land - The entry hill is nicer. The wider walkways just make practical sense, and the new shape of the planters give a more natural feel, which is more fitting of Future World West than the geometrics of Future World East. Plus, the running water on the new signage and the little creek are softer touches that again work in FWW not FWE. It helps distinguish the two areas better.

Inside, the "Seasons" carpets add a bit of whimsy while sticking with a theme, one that was established in the boat ride. It's a nice reinteration of an idea. The overall asthetics are more modern, for example the seats. It gives the whole area a more "posh" feel which matches well with the classier food choices to be found in Seasons. In short, if going a little artsy-fartsy was their goal, they succeeded.

The seat backs also have the Soarin' swoosh thingy in theme. Again, a nice reuse of an idea to keep cohesion between the elements. Overall i feel the more subtle color scheme helps to make the destinations really pop. The blue was just too strong and make the place seem dark. I like how it now feels open and large.

The sound system I find overall lacking. The music is nice, but it's not at the right levels in the building. It's nearly unheard over the noise of the food court.

Soarin' i feel is a nice and well done addition. The main hall is actually a reuse of the ideas established in the preshow for Circle of Life.

Overall, i feel a connection between the areas and elements.

Now over at Seas - the interior is dark and my hope has been that the re-do will add more signage and lighting. As it stands, there are brand new signs in the observation deck which are unreadable in the dark. I assume they didn't design it that way. The mural i felt was a great icon for that section of the park, and didn't need to be destroyed. If it's gonna come back grander than ever, hooray, but i'm worried it'll be defaced for a crappy overlay.

 

[PlaneJane]

Hello, can we put our multiple post into one long post instead of spamming the thread...

THANK YOU!

 

[wannab@dis]

You suggest that those who complain about the changes are against "all change", and are disingenuous in claiming that they're only against "change for the worse", since they complain about the majority of changes.

Around these parts... it's true. The same people complain day in and day out about EVERY thing that happens in the world. It's so annoying that I'm about to say 'bye-bye' and find somewhere with a few less idiots.

Has it occurred to you that many of the changes are indeed for the worse?

Count yourself in the group mentioned above. It hasn't occurred to me simply because it's not true.

I've been around Disney for a very long time, and I've seen it all--the good, the bad, and the ugly. I've seen positive change and I've seen absolute disasters. There were disasters in Walt's time, there were disasters after his death, and have there have been more recent disasters. The reality--and what has so many people up in arms--is that the disasters in the last 10 years have been more frequent, more serious, and rarely rectified. Walt (usually) learned from his mistakes. His successors largely haven't. It's very safe to say, for example, that we wouldn't have Imagination in its current state under Walt's leadership.

Ahhh... truth comes out. Like I was saying about many of the anti-change group, they are also Eisner bashers. You have absolutely no clue about the real world. You can try to 'imagine' but then again, most of what you wrote was just imagination since it has no basis in fact.

As to being "subjective", yes and no. To a large extent, qualitative differences are not subjective. Something that is done poorly by all reasonable standards, is qualitatively different than something done with care, creativity, and craftsmanship. We all have our own opinions on what we like and don't like, but we can generally recognize differences in quality, even if it's in something that is otherwise not our taste.

On truly subjective matters, we still have a voice. If we never were able to voice our opinions here, there wouldn't be a whole lot to say, would there?

Post all you want. But be ready for others to disagree and point out how glaringly wrong you are. Nothing is perfect... but, everything is not bad either. If so, why are you even on this board?

Actually, the previous poster "invoked Walt". I simply responded within context, not to support or refute a specific action, but to convey that Walt showed vision and leadership that has been lacking for some time now. I don't think that Walt being dead makes him or his ideas irrelevant. He set the standards which made all that we enjoy now possible, and though he made a misstep here and there, he was right far more often than he was wrong. I just don't see that happening under the current regime. It ostensibly is changing, but we've yet to see any concrete results. The bottom line is, much of Eisner's reign was creatively bankrupt and that his relentless cost-cutting dramatically reduced the quality of "show". I don't think "invoking Walt", when Walt clearly had a better vision, is at all a bad thing.

:snore: :snore:

Again, you're drawing a conclusion which is not supported by the evidence. I think it's safe to say that people are flocking to Soarin', not to the cosmetic changes within the atrium.

G7

So, the addition of Soarin was not a bad change, huh? That almighty bad clone with nothing new and nothing groundbreaking increased the guest counts? How horrible. Go back when all the naysayers were screaming about the addtion of Soarin and crying their eyes out over the balloons. The end product was a true success. If you don't think so... don't visit.

 

[Lee]

About the land - The entry hill is nicer. The wider walkways just make practical sense, and the new shape of the planters give a more natural feel, which is more fitting of Future World West than the geometrics of Future World East. Plus, the running water on the new signage and the little creek are softer touches that again work in FWW not FWE. It helps distinguish the two areas better.

Inside, the "Seasons" carpets add a bit of whimsy while sticking with a theme, one that was established in the boat ride. It's a nice reinteration of an idea. The overall asthetics are more modern, for example the seats. It gives the whole area a more "posh" feel which matches well with the classier food choices to be found in Seasons. In short, if going a little artsy-fartsy was their goal, they succeeded.

The seat backs also have the Soarin' swoosh thingy in theme. Again, a nice reuse of an idea to keep cohesion between the elements. Overall i feel the more subtle color scheme helps to make the destinations really pop. The blue was just too strong and make the place seem dark. I like how it now feels open and large.

The sound system I find overall lacking. The music is nice, but it's not at the right levels in the building. It's nearly unheard over the noise of the food court.

Soarin' i feel is a nice and well done addition. The main hall is actually a reuse of the ideas established in the preshow for Circle of Life.

Overall, i feel a connection between the areas and elements.

Thanks, Merf. That's pretty much exactly the sort of thing I was getting at.

Walking into Land now feels like what an Epcot pavillion in the 21st century should be like. The old Land was like stepping back 20 years into the past.:lol:

 

[wannab@dis]

Walking into Land now feels like what an Epcot pavillion in the 21st century should be like. The old Land was like stepping back 20 years into the past.:lol:

Most of the pavilions have/had that feeling. I'm hoping the changes at Living Seas helps it shake off the 80's also. I honestly don't get the "leave Epcot to in the 80's mentality' that is so prevelent.

 

[mhead]

Around these parts... it's true. The same people complain day in and day out about EVERY thing that happens in the world. It's so annoying that I'm about to say 'bye-bye' and find somewhere with a few less idiots.

Count yourself in the group mentioned above. It hasn't occurred to me simply because it's not true.

Ahhh... truth comes out. Like I was saying about many of the anti-change group, they are also Eisner bashers. You have absolutely no clue about the real world. You can try to 'imagine' but then again, most of what you wrote was just imagination since it has no basis in fact.

Post all you want. But be ready for others to disagree and point out how glaringly wrong you are. Nothing is perfect... but, everything is not bad either. If so, why are you even on this board?






:snore: :snore:






So, the addition of Soarin was not a bad change, huh? That almighty bad clone with nothing new and nothing groundbreaking increased the guest counts? How horrible. Go back when all the naysayers were screaming about the addtion of Soarin and crying their eyes out over the balloons. The end product was a true success. If you don't think so... don't visit.

and once again someone else's opinion is not true but your opinions are the gospel. Geesh I am tired of those holier than thou personalities around here. Some people don't want to see or like change, some do - it doesn't make either side right or wrong.

 

[Captain Chaos]

and once again someone else's opinion is not true but your opinions are the gospel. Geesh I am tired of those holier than thou personalities around here. Some people don't want to see or like change, some do - it doesn't make wither side right or wrong.

Yes, some people here have a holier than thou attitude... But, not everyone... We all have our opinions.. If you don't like something, then stay away for that ride or show or attraction... or better yet, stay away from WDW... That would be one less person I have to stand behind when waiting online to enjoy the experience Disney gave me, no matter how thrilling or how mild... Not everything can be to your liking.. Deal with it....

 

[wannab@dis]

and once again someone else's opinion is not true but your opinions are the gospel. Geesh I am tired of those holier than thou personalities around here. Some people don't want to see or like change, some do - it doesn't make wither side right or wrong.

Please take the time to give us a good factual based opinion. However, blanket statements "that everything is horrible" is NOT factual based and IS wrong.

Opinions are fine and everyone is free to post them... however, everyone is also free to refute or disagree. :wave:

 

[Mori Anne]

I'd think that if they were tearing it down, it would just be demolished instead of just random pieces being taken out. But it is odd that they are just "swiss" cheese holes and not squares or something easier to replace.
Interesting pics. Thanks for sharing!!

Edit: Nevermind, upon closer examination of the pics I notice they did cute out pieces in shaped sections.....Sorry.