MiklCraw4d
Member
Theme
I agree that the theme of a pavilion can change over time. However I think that these changes should remain consistent with the overall purpose (theme) of the park it's in. For instance, I wouldn't object if the Wonders of Life pavilion changed its theme from health and well-bring to, say, weather or futurism or something else. But it should also remain within the overall thematic goals of EPCOT that have been mentioned elsewhere in this discussion.
I'm not sure why my posts would be seen as against the general necessity of change. I would suggest that this would be based more on the bias of the reader than my own meaning. The only changes I oppose on a general level are those that fundamentally stray from the core tenets of Walt's goals in theme park design. Providing an accessible, pleasing experience that comforts and entertains. In EPCOT (seeing Future World as an extension of Walt's ideals for Tomorrowland) that would include informing and inspiring guests as you entertain them.
I admit that I was far more against change in general a few years ago because I had lost faith in the company to provide new experiences that were up to par. I had DCA, Disneyland's Tomorrowland, the half-finished DAK, JIYI, and several other examples to guide my conclusions. I was more wary when Disney announced the closure of a quality, proven experience for something that was an unknown factor, because they had lost my confidence that they could pull off something truly cool that didn't scrape the bottom of the barrel.
Since Pressler's departure, the turnaround has begun. My faith is returning, and with it my ability to accept the announcement of change with anticipation rather than suspicion. But that doesn't mean if I don't think the paint is ugly I'm not going to say I think it's ugly. It doesn't mean if I think Stitch Encounter is awful I won't say so.
You can disagree with changes on different levels. If they make a poor color decision in The Land, or move a fountain or put tombstones in Future World plaza, that's one thing. If they put up a carny midway on World Showcase promenade, change SSE to a roller coaster with lots of fart jokes, or replace Energy with bumper cars that's another thing.
Complaining about changes in details is just about aesthetics. If I think the paint is ugly inside it's not because I'm 'against change'. I like the new area outside. Would this not present a contradiction if I was truly against change? I think these discussions in recent years have devolved into two camps and people are unable to see the grey areas anymore.
If all of this makes me one of the 'troops' I don't really care (or even know what that means). All I know is that, at five years old, I went to EPCOT a month after it opened and since then I've spent the time studying Disney parks and design. I consider Walt a genius among entertainers and am constantly amazed at his ability to give people what they wanted even if they didn't know it. This doesn't make me at all special, but I certainly think my opinions are guided by more than a resistance to change or any mind control another web site can exert on me.
As an unrelated aside, I would describe a 'good' change as something that:
- Is technologically and aesthetically up to par with the standards that Disney has set over the years.
- Is thematically consistent both with its surroundings and within itself.
- Meets Disney standards of storytelling within an attraction.
- For EPCOT, helps tie into the themes of exploration, discovery, and human betterment.
I would see these as minimum requirements. If WDI doesn't aspire to these standards, we wind up getting Six Flags. Six Flags is great, but I don't really care about Six Flags.
I do agree with you that this discussion has veered off course from merely discussing Soarin, and would thus be far more suited for a general EPCOT thread. In this spirit, I will retreat to the other forums!
wannab@dis said:
I agree that the theme of a pavilion can change over time. However I think that these changes should remain consistent with the overall purpose (theme) of the park it's in. For instance, I wouldn't object if the Wonders of Life pavilion changed its theme from health and well-bring to, say, weather or futurism or something else. But it should also remain within the overall thematic goals of EPCOT that have been mentioned elsewhere in this discussion.
I'm not sure why my posts would be seen as against the general necessity of change. I would suggest that this would be based more on the bias of the reader than my own meaning. The only changes I oppose on a general level are those that fundamentally stray from the core tenets of Walt's goals in theme park design. Providing an accessible, pleasing experience that comforts and entertains. In EPCOT (seeing Future World as an extension of Walt's ideals for Tomorrowland) that would include informing and inspiring guests as you entertain them.
I admit that I was far more against change in general a few years ago because I had lost faith in the company to provide new experiences that were up to par. I had DCA, Disneyland's Tomorrowland, the half-finished DAK, JIYI, and several other examples to guide my conclusions. I was more wary when Disney announced the closure of a quality, proven experience for something that was an unknown factor, because they had lost my confidence that they could pull off something truly cool that didn't scrape the bottom of the barrel.
Since Pressler's departure, the turnaround has begun. My faith is returning, and with it my ability to accept the announcement of change with anticipation rather than suspicion. But that doesn't mean if I don't think the paint is ugly I'm not going to say I think it's ugly. It doesn't mean if I think Stitch Encounter is awful I won't say so.
You can disagree with changes on different levels. If they make a poor color decision in The Land, or move a fountain or put tombstones in Future World plaza, that's one thing. If they put up a carny midway on World Showcase promenade, change SSE to a roller coaster with lots of fart jokes, or replace Energy with bumper cars that's another thing.
Complaining about changes in details is just about aesthetics. If I think the paint is ugly inside it's not because I'm 'against change'. I like the new area outside. Would this not present a contradiction if I was truly against change? I think these discussions in recent years have devolved into two camps and people are unable to see the grey areas anymore.
If all of this makes me one of the 'troops' I don't really care (or even know what that means). All I know is that, at five years old, I went to EPCOT a month after it opened and since then I've spent the time studying Disney parks and design. I consider Walt a genius among entertainers and am constantly amazed at his ability to give people what they wanted even if they didn't know it. This doesn't make me at all special, but I certainly think my opinions are guided by more than a resistance to change or any mind control another web site can exert on me.
As an unrelated aside, I would describe a 'good' change as something that:
- Is technologically and aesthetically up to par with the standards that Disney has set over the years.
- Is thematically consistent both with its surroundings and within itself.
- Meets Disney standards of storytelling within an attraction.
- For EPCOT, helps tie into the themes of exploration, discovery, and human betterment.
I would see these as minimum requirements. If WDI doesn't aspire to these standards, we wind up getting Six Flags. Six Flags is great, but I don't really care about Six Flags.
I do agree with you that this discussion has veered off course from merely discussing Soarin, and would thus be far more suited for a general EPCOT thread. In this spirit, I will retreat to the other forums!
