Soarin' and The Land changes - what is your opinion?

[MiklCraw4d]

EPCOT Opening

Epcot was thought of as boring since the day it opened by the average tourist. Don't believe me....go to the library and look at old magazines and newspapers that covered the grnnd opening.

If anything, Epcot now needs to over-compensate for its boring reputation.

I've been doing a lot of research lately, pulling old articles from that period, and most of the coverage was very positive. Coverage tends towards the breathless, talking about the huge achievment and the scope of what was, at the time, the largest private construction project in the country.

The more serious nature of the park was certainly noted, but it seems to have been seen as a positive movement by Disney to diversify its audience and provide a different experience than in the Magic Kingdom.

That's another reason why I object to the thematic watering down of EPCOT in recent years. There are four parks in WDW - they don't all need to be the same. Having separate gates gives you the benefit of being able to offer different experiences. And, as I said before, EPCOT's popularity through the years seems to indicate a large number of people find that experience worthwhile.

Expansion and refreshment is an understood necessity. Thematic drift is not.

mc

 

[MiklCraw4d]

Park Hopping

Have you ever thought that the reason for this is that the number one vacation destination in the nation is WDW? Once you are at WDW, you will purchase a park hopper and essentially "hop" to all the parks~MK, Epcot, DAK, MGM. People spending good, hard earned money are looking to get the most bang for their buck, and since they are paying for admission to all 4 parks, they are going to visit all four parks...

Well it certainly doesn't hurt. Yet EPCOT pulls bigger numbers than MGM or DAK. And having a park hopper, especially with four parks, still leaves you with an amount of freedom of choice. For example, I always buy park hoppers but I never go to DAK. I might go every few years if they add something but I just don't feel compelled to go. I'd much rather spend another day in MK or at EPCOT.

So even with all four parks having an equal chance of pulling in the park hopping crowd, the majority chooses EPCOT over MGM or DAK. And if EPCOT was really as off-putting as it has been described here, return visitors would probably be taking those extra days of vacation in another park, a water park, or (gasp) heading across town to 'exciting' Universal or IOA.

mc

 

[speck76]

If the purpose has changed, what is the purpose? What do you see the purpose of the park as?

It was built to bring about technological and social change......but now, it is just another theme park.

Not to be contrary, but if EPCOT does not appeal to people why does it remain the third most popular theme park in the nation and the second most popular park in the Orlando area?

Many visitors go due to park-hopping. It gets a boost in attendance over MGM and DAK due to the Flower and Garden, Food and Wine, and Holidays around the World festivals that are attended heavily by locals.

EPCOT has always been, and remains, second only in popularity to the Magic Kingdoms. I certainly can't claim to read minds, but if people weren't at least somewhat entertained by being 'educated and inspired' I think those numbers would have dropped off somewhat in the last 25 years.

mc

They have dropped off.....significantly.

The only thing that has brought back the guests are attractions like Mission Space...and the fact that the festivals grow in length each year.

 

[wannab@dis]

Expansion and refreshment is an understood necessity. Thematic drift is not.

mc

Why?

New times require new themes to stay fresh. If you don't change with the times, you'll be left behind. I'm not dissing your opinion, but I think it's narrow minded. We don't see the true gate numbers or the WDW research results. They probably have seen trends that suggested it was time to give a fresh aspect to the parks or take the chance of losing attendance.

Have you ever thought that the reason for this is that the number one vacation destination in the nation is WDW? Once you are at WDW, you will purchase a park hopper and essentially "hop" to all the parks~MK, Epcot, DAK, MGM. People spending good, hard earned money are looking to get the most bang for their buck, and since they are paying for admission to all 4 parks, they are going to visit all four parks...

You are exactly on with that post. But, you can go one step further. It's possible that people will see one park or another as a waste of time. It would be very easy to get a 3 or 4 day hopper and not visit one of the parks during your 7 day visit. Next thing that would happen would be that visitors decide that spending half their vacation at WDW doesn't warrent staying on site; therefore, less money coming in.

During a visit, you can jump over to other Orlando attractions and spend your money there. The gate admission is probably a small percentage of the total dollars spent at WDW. If visitors decide to skip a park and go to Uni or SW then their money goes with them. Again, less money being generated is the worse case scenario and future growth will suffer.

 

[Lee]

Not to be contrary, but if EPCOT does not appeal to people why does it remain the third most popular theme park in the nation and the second most popular park in the Orlando area?

Easy...It's at WDW. As a stand-alone park, without the rest of the resort to help draw guests, Epcot would be nowhere near the #3 spot.

 

[Wckd Queen]

Well it certainly doesn't hurt. Yet EPCOT pulls bigger numbers than MGM or DAK. And having a park hopper, especially with four parks, still leaves you with an amount of freedom of choice. For example, I always buy park hoppers but I never go to DAK. I might go every few years if they add something but I just don't feel compelled to go. I'd much rather spend another day in MK or at EPCOT.

So even with all four parks having an equal chance of pulling in the park hopping crowd, the majority chooses EPCOT over MGM or DAK. And if EPCOT was really as off-putting as it has been described here, return visitors would probably be taking those extra days of vacation in another park, a water park, or (gasp) heading across town to 'exciting' Universal or IOA.

mc

Epcot most likely draws more than MGM or DAK because they have more thrill rides to offer: TT, MS and now Soarin'. The fact that two of those rides happen to be the two NEWEST alone would draw more just in the way of curiosity seekers, just like EE will do over at DAK once it opens.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I think this drift may be getting a bit convoluted now.

At least for me, I have not complained as of recently about the ATTRACTIONS that have been added WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JII. That was simply a mistake, and I think Disney knows that (but too late and too $$ to restore it). Where the problem lies now is in that time between entering a pavilion and boarding the ride. Having education as the highlight didn't work. EPCOT Center was grand, and a lot of people learned from it. I for one learned A LOT from this park as a kid. However, it was boring to a very large portion of the population. Therefore, they needed draws. Hence, we have Mission:Space, TT, and Soarin' now, and I would guess that we will see some other incorporations in the near future. These are what people are going for. However, you have people standing in line, wandering shops, eating, etc. when they are not riding these rides. Therefore, THIS is where EPCOT should still be EPCOT. People won't come to ride WoM, but they will stand in line to ride TT. Therefore, put in big displays that explain how testing works. It (1) gives people things to do and (2) gives them information. Solves two problems, and I HIGHLY doubt anyone would complain about not having metal switchbacks with blank walls.

If we have a large pavilion with a food court, give people something to look at and figure out. It can look nice AND tell a story that takes more than a single glance. Constant feeding of the mind, I guess, is entertaining when that situation (i.e. sitting at a fast food restaurant) would normally not be. No one I have read here seems to suggest that Epcot doesn't need attractions like Soarin'. That is a great attraction. But, having that doesn't mean the other areas of the pavilion then can't be educational and thought provoking. If people won't come to see it, make them see it while they are waiting for what they DID come to see.

Second, Disney is also in an awkward position with reputation. We keep talking about how Epcot is the "boring park." But, how many people hear about not going to Disney because "Disney World is just for children." Therefore, Disney did create an adult park. It was interesting and informative. But, that became boring. So, it is now tailoring it more to kids, which is buying back into the very stereotype Disney World has been fighting for years. This is an odd Catch 22, IMHO, and neither way is really working to its fullest. I think Epcot is on the right track now (assuming SSE is restored and not replaced AND that the Nemo additions maintain its educational value). Only time, though, will tell if this is progress...

 

[MiklCraw4d]

Park theme

Why?

New times require new themes to stay fresh. If you don't change with the times, you'll be left behind. I'm not dissing your opinion, but I think it's narrow minded. We don't see the true gate numbers or the WDW research results. They probably have seen trends that suggested it was time to give a fresh aspect to the parks or take the chance of losing attendance.

Why must EPCOT maintain its theme? Because that is the entire point... it is a theme park, and the entire thesis of EPCOT (Future World) was to inspire and inform people as to how technology and imagination could be used to affect a better future. That's the entire point. I have yet to see anyone mention what exactly these 'new themes' are supposed to be. I've heard that now it's 'just a theme park' but that seems to be a circular argument as the 'theme' still remains undefined.

Did EPCOT need 'new themes' to stay fresh? I don't think so. The idea of EPCOT Center was to be a perpetual World's Fair that was constantly in renewal. The themes that 1982 EPCOT were founded in are just as, if not more so, valid today. While I agree that the presentation and implementation of these themes are bound to change over the years, the themes themselves are still paramount.

Renewal and freshening are, of course, crucial to keeping attendance high at any theme park. Of course attendance would be flatlining if EPCOT hadn't changed at all since 1982; I daresay that if MK was still 1971 vintage it wouldn't be doing as well as it is. But changing with the times can take many forms and I just don't think EPCOT has done so in a way that is consistent with its purpose.

The goal of maintaining a renewable World's Fair that both informs and entertains is far more difficult than maintaining a typical theme park. It took a decade of research and effort to create the 1982 incarnation of the park. The problem it that as time passed and renewal became necessary it was far more expedient to just slap-dash something in without thought to concept rather than put together something new and epic in a way that was comparable to the original EPCOT effort.

The result is a Future World that doesn't cohere. If they want it to be something different, that's fine. But they need to figure out what it's going to be, why it needs to be there, and actually do it.

 

[MiklCraw4d]

Easy...It's at WDW. As a stand-alone park, without the rest of the resort to help draw guests, Epcot would be nowhere near the #3 spot.

So? Aside from the fact that this is nothing but complete speculation, the fact is that it is still the #2 theme park in the Orlando market. Personally, I don't care what the reason is. The fact that it outdraws MGM and AK shows that it has quite a sizable market share, and that it manages to draw enough return business to maintain that year after year. If the general public had as great disdain for the park as is portrayed here it would not still be #2.

I think the fact that attendance levelled off during the 90's is due to the fact that after Seas in '86 and Life in '89 nothing of real interest opened in Future World until Test Track in 1997-8. In the meantime there were several years of no Horizons or Motion in Future World East, and until the events of the Millennium absolutely nothing happened in World Showcase after 1988. It was the diversion of cash into MGM, AK, and hotel development that hurt attendance at EPCOT because it was not allowed to expand as planned. Now they're trying to play catch up, but it was not the core themes of EPCOT that hurt it in the first place - it was the lack of investment after 1988-9.

 

[MiklCraw4d]

Epcot most likely draws more than MGM or DAK because they have more thrill rides to offer: TT, MS and now Soarin'. The fact that two of those rides happen to be the two NEWEST alone would draw more just in the way of curiosity seekers, just like EE will do over at DAK once it opens.

EPCOT has been #2 behind MK ever since 1982. Even when it had no thrill rides and MGM had TZToT. Even when it had no thrill rides and AK was brand new. Even when it just had TT and MGM had TZ & R&RC.

I'm sure, of course, that having new E-tickets will give it a bump in attendance. But it was already ahead of MGM or AK.

I certainly do hope EE brings lots of people to AK. It'll get me in the gates. Maybe then they'll decide to actually finish the darn park.

 

[Wckd Queen]

EPCOT has been #2 behind MK ever since 1982. Even when it had no thrill rides and MGM had TZToT. Even when it had no thrill rides and AK was brand new. Even when it just had TT and MGM had TZ & R&RC.

I'm sure, of course, that having new E-tickets will give it a bump in attendance. But it was already ahead of MGM or AK.

I certainly do hope EE brings lots of people to AK. It'll get me in the gates. Maybe then they'll decide to actually finish the darn park.

Epcot was #2, behind MK in 1982 because, aside from a whale over at Seaworld, it was the only other thing in Orlando :lookaroun

 

[Gregory]

Unfortunately, others in your circle don't feel the same as you. I've received neg reps from your group for giving my opinion on this subject and they don't believe in their cause enough to even sign it.

You're going to get a backlash off this subject because it's now apparent that the vast majority of people don't agree with your opinion of attacking every detail. This rehab of the Land has been thrashed over for more than a year and every bit of the writing by the troops has been negative. You couldn't wait until it was done to get negative and in my opinion would not have been happy no matter what was done. If I have that opinion, then others will, and your message will suffer.

Try to be optimistic, positive and leave the small things alone. You're losing credibility by harping about exposed air vents or ceiling grids. Get back to seasonal operations and maintenance type issues. Talk about good CM's that bring magic to the guests. Do articles with a positive thesis, but point out problems as supporting material.

First off, I have never, and never will, give negative rep points to anyone. I can't be held accountable for the actions of others in my "circle" (which, while we're on the topic, D-Troops members don't all have the same opinions.. Its not like what one person says is adopted by the rest of the group...) And, what we post on D-Troops ranges from completely unbiased to somewhat negative to positive (check back within the next few days.. we usually do it this way- start with an unbiased opinion, then write our thoughts, then in the third installment on a topic, provide the other side of the argument. So, before you attack us for being relentlessly biased, take a look at the site.. )

As for being optomistic... We do regularly post articles putting Disney in a positive light. Within the last week, we posted a wonderful newsbrief about the Flower and Garden Festival, and another about The Official Album of the Walt Disney World Resort: The Happiest Celebration On Earth. We try to post at least two positive articles/newsbriefs each week. We are also planning on a version of "Bad Show" called "Good Show"- where we point out, on a weekly basis, the good things about Disney. And, in every "negative" article about Disney, we do our best to point out all the good things (like, we praise Soarin, even though we don't think the new Land represents what its title does).

What I just wrote is also in response to the post by ThreeCircles.

I would love to see more technology in Epcot (They even changed their name from EPCOT, in an effort to excuse itself from having to be technologically advanced...) If The Land was turned into an exhibit featuring technological advances in farming, that would be great. But, detailed themeing of the Land was sacrificed for a more sleek layout, which was more about design than The Land.

 

[speck76]

If The Land was turned into an exhibit featuring technological advances in farming, that would be great.

But why would that make sense for a theme park?

How many guests would be willing to pay $60 to see this?

 

[wannab@dis]

Why must EPCOT maintain its theme? Because that is the entire point... it is a theme park, and the entire thesis of EPCOT (Future World) was to inspire and inform people as to how technology and imagination could be used to affect a better future. That's the entire point.

Uhmmm... I thought we were talking about a pavilion, not the entire THEME park. The theme of a pavilion can and should undergo a metamorphasis to keep things fresh. Whether you admit it or not, most people will read your posts as someone against change. I've had this same discussion with others and they always come back to say "good" changes are fine. Unfortunately, that's in the eye of the beholder. And even more unfortunate, most of the 'troops' have very clouded eyes.

 

[Wckd Queen]

First off, I have never, and never will, give negative rep points to anyone. I can't be held accountable for the actions of others in my "circle" (which, while we're on the topic, D-Troops members don't all have the same opinions.. Its not like what one person says is adopted by the rest of the group...) And, what we post on D-Troops ranges from completely unbiased to somewhat negative to positive (check back within the next few days.. we usually do it this way- start with an unbiased opinion, then write our thoughts, then in the third installment on a topic, provide the other side of the argument. So, before you attack us for being relentlessly biased, take a look at the site.. )

With regard to your website, Gregory, I think that what you need to keep in mind is that there are members of this site who do not frequent it. Therefore their only perceptions of your site are based on how you represent it when you post here. When you post your opinions on WDWMagic, complete with links to posts or articles on your site, whether you realize it or not, you are acting as a representative of your site. Your posts and actions here do count towards how your site in general is perceived. If you are negative here, then your site will be perceived as negative. It's that simple.

 

[Gregory]

But why would that make sense for a theme park?

How many guests would be willing to pay $60 to see this?

Exactly. It wouldn't work. Now, tell me... how many people would pay $60 to visit an airport? Especially when they just saw when getting to WDW, and are going to see one again in the next few days.

The old Land was looking to the future. You know the line "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."? Well, thats the way I feel the Land was. It fit in Future World because it used the past to help us understand the future.

The current land isn't very earth-y. It is sleek, and sterile. It would be like re-doing the Land, and taking out all water- leaving just an artsy representation of it.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Exactly. It wouldn't work. Now, tell me... how many people would pay $60 to visit an airport?

I generally pay way more than $60 to see an airport, like these since mid febuary:

IAD - Dulles, too much construction, confusing layout. B-
Orlando - Nice, sleek, bright, sunny .... yet that whole A & B Terminals confuse even me,. B
St Louis - Too Dark, drab and dreary. But easy to manuver. B+
Memphis - Really, its not a real airport. No food open late. C
Charlotte - Very nice, good food selection and decent layout. A-

 

[Gregory]

Unfortunately, that's in the eye of the beholder. And even more unfortunate, most of the 'troops' have very clouded eyes.

We are very clear on what we consider a "good" change... Such as closing WoL is not good, nor is replacing attractions with meet-and-greets. We do not consider The Land a good change, but we also don't consider it a bad one.

I personally always felt The Land was slightly outdated, and when I found out there was going to be a rehab, I was fairly happy about it. But, I personally think that the current Land doesn't embody what "The Land" means to me... It may mean something different to you, which is why like the new Land.

I also wish you would stay away from personal attacks, and generalizations. D-Troops is no more a group than WDWMagic is- by that, I mean its a community filled with different views and opinions. It would be unfair for me to make generalizations about WDWMagic members, because they are so different. It is the same with D-Troops. I have never personally attacked anyone on these boards, or made generalizations. Like I have posted before, I think it is fair for you to show me the same respect. If you are going to argue something, give facts. I think that, between my posts and the articles on D-Troops, we have stated more than enough facts, and established our position...

To Wckd Queen - While you are probably correct, it is unintentional. First off, I am just the webmaster of the site. Its not my site, really- I don't write articles, or post too often on the message boards. Secondly, I don't want to be an advertiser of D-Troops. I could go around to every positive topic, and post links to D-Troops articles-- people would get sick of it VERY fast. I only link to D-Troops (usually to point out something that can be used to defend the site against false accusations, such as being completley biased) in topics where D-Troops is being specifically "bashed". Admittedly, the fact that D-Troops only seems to come up during controversies, I can see why people would think negatively about the site. Nobody says "Did anyone see the wonderful pictures from the Flower and Garden Festivel posted over at D-Troops?"

It seems that people are only concerned in bringing up D-Troops when its something they dont agree with. Which makes it easy to understand why people would think D-Troops is "evil." So, I guess all I can ask is that people actually go to the site and read it for themselves. I think that people just take on other peoples opinions, rather than actually go to the site and see that we are not the anti-Disney. I'm not trying to plug the site or anything- I would never mention the word "D-Troops" if someone didn't bring it up before me.

D-Troops is associated with being radically anti change, etc... The name only comes up with a negative spin on these boards. So, yes, Wckd Queen, you are right. Posts like this only hurt the sites credibility. But, we are not here to use WDWMagic as a place to advertise the site. We don't bring the site up- we just are forced to defend it (me, at least- I can't speak for the rest of the "D-Troops")... So, as you can see, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, with noplace to go.

 

[General Grizz]

This rehab of the Land has been thrashed over for more than a year and every bit of the writing by the troops has been negative. You couldn't wait until it was done to get negative and in my opinion would not have been happy no matter what was done. If I have that opinion, then others will, and your message will suffer.

This is not true, wannab. I had my initial doubts when I had heard from insiders that a Travel Agency was in the works a little less than a year ago, but ever since the themes of seasons came in, I was pretty darn excited. A post history search after we had heard about the return of the balloons (and as we saw the exterior of the Land being improved) will prove that I became pretty darn excited.

In fact, I had planned on writing a article celebrating the new Land. In several aspects we will be doing that, but no, there was no "couldn't wait until it was over to trash it." That's just not true.

==

In response to the whole education topic, I think education still should be mixed in with entertainment. Soarin' and Living with the Land, for example, offer both in the same pavilion. I'd also like to see Turtle Talk continue to present more "Sea facts" and sea awareness that can delight and inspire guests.

Another prime example of infotainment is "Cranium Command," where comedy may seem to overshadow all of the vast "general knowledge" we actually learn. Remember that Epcot is filled with students visiting on field trips daily, and teachers across America have entrusted Disney with presenting quality shows and attractions that can inspire students to think and have a great time. This is a big market, and had Epcot opened without that closely-knit series of pavilions celebrating man's achievements and curiosities, that market wouldn't exist. (Epcot has also provided educational videos of their attractions, which both enlightens viewers and markets the park in a respectful, unique way).

And, as Walt had always thought his parks to inspire, so should Epcot should continue to celebrate the achievements of man, entertaining and delighting.

Sure, some of the reasons we will want to go to the park is to check out the latest thrill ride. But this doesn't mean Disney's classic education can't be included in the experience.

Otherwise, what else could differentiate the Disney parks, especially Epcot?

But BACK to the Land...

 

[Gregory]

I generally pay way more than $60 to see an airport, like these since mid febuary:

IAD - Dulles, too much construction, confusing layout. B-
Orlando - Nice, sleek, bright, sunny .... yet that whole A & B Terminals confuse even me,. B
St Louis - Too Dark, drab and dreary. But easy to manuver. B+
Memphis - Really, its not a real airport. No food open late. C
Charlotte - Very nice, good food selection and decent layout. A-

I gotta admit.. you've lost me.. I think I get what you're (sarcastically) talking about, and out of context, what I said does (in hindsight) seem fairly idiotic.. But, in reference to Specks post, I think my post makes sense.

I could be wrong, but I don't think you fly to Orlando so you can stay in the Orlando Airport, sleep over, visit the gift shop, and leave in the morning. The airport could be considered to be like the turnstiles at WDW- you don't pay for the turnstiles, you pay for whats behind them (same as the airport).. Its kinda like DCA- people don't want to go to California to visit a park about California. Just like they don't go to a theme park to visit an airport terminal. I hope that made some sense.. Basically what I was getting at, though, is that you don't pay to see the airport. You just go though it on the way to your destination. An airport isn't really a destination, its a gateway to a destination.