EPCOT Space 220 Restaurant dining experience at Epcot's Future World

[Bullseye1967]

Here is a 2 for 1. Space 220 and an Epcot Forever fireworks cruise.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Yeah, why can’t they move away from screens with rides like Rat… er… Smugglers Run… um… MMRR… wait… Tron… you know what, never mind.

(For the record, I think MMRR is pretty close to a masterpiece, but the “screen” line will remain no matter what the two resorts actually build.)

Also, do people really prefer Disney’s PR tone - over-inflated self-important faux reverence and a hypocritical exploitation of the nostalgia they otherwise ignore - to Uni’s silly snark?

You're missing the key difference in that screen rides are not the majority at Disney but they are at Universal and for a while it was all Universal was building.

Also, it's not fair to include rides that use screens as set dressing (Rise of the Resistance, Na'Vi) with rides where the screen is the ride.

 

[Dr.GrantSeeker]

5:45am and cant make any reservation at Space 220 or any other Disney restaurant. Maybe it is 6am? Maybe it is Disney IT?

Edit: for the days of my resort stay. They opened up this morning.

 

[awoogala]

5:45am and cant make any reservation at Space 220 or any other Disney restaurant. Maybe it is 6am? Maybe it is Disney IT?

Edit: for the days of my resort stay. They opened up this morning.

They are pretty much booked through November now. What dates are you trying for?

 

[rkleinlein]

No it isn't, first of all. Usually when you say "family of four" you mean two adults and two kids. That would be $220.

Um. Yes it is. And I did, in fact, mean a family of four with two adults and two kids. Kids over 9 are kids, not adults.

For a family of four with two kids over 9 (not a rare occurrence at WDW) the cost would be would be over $400 ($320 + drinks + tax + tip).

But you are also right: a family of four with two kids under 9 ordering from the kids menu would be a bargain at around $300 ($220 + drinks + tax + tip).

Anyone wanting to pay about what it cost to get in the park (maybe more) for a 20 second elevator ride and a meal next to giant screens have at it. I'll pass.

 

[Casper Gutman]

You're missing the key difference in that screen rides are not the majority at Disney but they are at Universal and for a while it was all Universal was building.

Also, it's not fair to include rides that use screens as set dressing (Rise of the Resistance, Na'Vi) with rides where the screen is the ride.

And now it’s all WDW is building.

And I didn’t mention Rise. In fact, if you look above, I defended it. But come on, Na’Vi has a whopping one AA. It’s screen based.

And as for Uni having a higher percentage of screen rides - that’s interesting. The least screen-based park in Orlando is MK, with only 10% of its attractions reliant on a screen. But the next is IOA with 22% screen-based attractions. And Universal Studios is the most screen-reliant park, but only because it has one fewer attraction overall then MGM or EPCOT - all three parks have 8 screen rides. The difference comes out to 53% for US and 50% for the two WDW parks. Resort-wide, Uni is more screen reliant (but screen-based rides are nowhere near a majority), 36% to 22%, but that’s entirely due to MK. Compare Uni to the three newer WDW parks, and Uni is significantly less screen-heavy.

So yeah, WDW doesn’t have a huge amount to gloat about on the screen front.

PS: I forgot Rat! When that finally opens, EPCOT will be tied with Universal Studios as Orlando's most screen-based park!

 

[Hawg G]

And now it’s all WDW is building.

And I didn’t mention Rise. In fact, if you look above, I defended it. But come on, Na’Vi has a whopping one AA. It’s screen based.

And as for Uni having a higher percentage of screen rides - that’s interesting. The least screen-based park in Orlando is MK, with only 10% of its attractions reliant on a screen. But the next is IOA with 22% screen-based attractions. And Universal Studios is the most screen-reliant park, but only because it has one fewer attraction overall then MGM or EPCOT - all three parks have 8 screen rides. The difference comes out to 53% for US and 50% for the two WDW parks. Resort-wide, Uni is more screen reliant (but screen-based rides are nowhere near a majority), 36% to 22%, but that’s entirely due to MK. Compare Uni to the three newer WDW parks, and Uni is significantly less screen-heavy.

So yeah, WDW doesn’t have a huge amount to gloat about on the screen front.

The reason all Universal built for a while was screen based rides was because Universal was actually BUILDING new rides. If you compared screen ride percentages of rides built this century, I wouldn’t be surprised if Universal has less.

 

[SplashJacket]

And now it’s all WDW is building.

And I didn’t mention Rise. In fact, if you look above, I defended it. But come on, Na’Vi has a whopping one AA. It’s screen based.

That’s more of an argument for a lack of content on Na’Vi than a reliance on screens.

 

[Casper Gutman]

That’s more of an argument for a lack of content on Na’Vi than a reliance on screens.

I mean, screen-based is more generous then empty-warehouse-based.

 

[flynnibus]

Yes, I prefer companies concern themselves with themselves rather than trying to elevate themselves by looking for gotchas and belittling their competition. It gives off an air of insecurity.

The jist of the jab wasn't about the use of screens people... stop being so literal.

The jist of the joke is Space 2020 is still just a restaurant with video screen windows. It's a cutdown about the hype of it, and what it basically is. It's a jab at hype vs reality.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I do not like the use of screens in attractions to replace conventional dark ride animatronics, but for the space 220 restaurant, I love what they have done!! To me, space 220 really feels like it belongs in EPCOT.

 

[UNCgolf]

But come on, Na’Vi has a whopping one AA. It’s screen based.

This is a crazy take; calling NRJ a screen based ride is absurd. IMO it's one of the better rides they've built at WDW in the past couple of decades despite its flaws because it relies on actual detailed sets (like a classic Disney ride) instead of screens or projections. I'd much rather see another ride similar to NRJ than almost anything else Disney OR Universal have built this century.

While Na'vi should absolutely have a couple more AAs and is far from perfect, it and Rise are the two of the best examples anywhere of how to use screens in a ride. They should be a complement to detailed physical sets instead of the thing you are looking at. The screens add some additional detail and background movement but they're not what makes the ride.

With all that said, even if you absolutely hate NRJ, it's still not remotely screen based. You could remove all the screens and it wouldn't significantly hurt the ride's appeal since they're not a major focus.

 

[Demarke]

This is a crazy take. Calling NRJ a screen based ride is absurd. It's still one of the better rides they've built at WDW in the past couple of decades despite its flaws because it relies on actually transporting you via detailed sets instead of just looking at a screen. I'd much rather see another ride similar to NRJ than almost anything else Disney OR Universal have built this century.

While Na'vi should absolutely have a couple more AAs, it and Rise are the two of the best examples anywhere of how to use screens in a ride. They should be a complement to detailed physical sets instead of the thing you are looking at. The screens add some additional detail and background movement but they're not what makes the ride pretty good.

With all that said, even if you absolutely hate NRJ, it's still not remotely screen based. You could remove all the screens and it wouldn't significantly hurt the ride's appeal since they're not a major focus.

I think most of the screens in NRJ are blended pretty well except the first one with the panther looking creatures, that one just screams screen projection to me.

I think a lot of folks forget that early Epcot used a decent amount of screens too (looking at you Universe of Energy, Wonders of Life pavilion, and even Horizons had the IMAX segment). I’m okay with some screens being used, I just hope they are there to augment practical effects rather than the entire show (FoP being my exception). The Fast and Furious, Kong, Jimmy Fallon, Spider-Man, and Simpsons style rides at Uni just don’t do it for me.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I'm upset the earth isn't an audioanimatronic!!

 

[Incomudro]

And now it’s all WDW is building.

And I didn’t mention Rise. In fact, if you look above, I defended it. But come on, Na’Vi has a whopping one AA. It’s screen based.

And as for Uni having a higher percentage of screen rides - that’s interesting. The least screen-based park in Orlando is MK, with only 10% of its attractions reliant on a screen. But the next is IOA with 22% screen-based attractions. And Universal Studios is the most screen-reliant park, but only because it has one fewer attraction overall then MGM or EPCOT - all three parks have 8 screen rides. The difference comes out to 53% for US and 50% for the two WDW parks. Resort-wide, Uni is more screen reliant (but screen-based rides are nowhere near a majority), 36% to 22%, but that’s entirely due to MK. Compare Uni to the three newer WDW parks, and Uni is significantly less screen-heavy.

So yeah, WDW doesn’t have a huge amount to gloat about on the screen front.

PS: I forgot Rat! When that finally opens, EPCOT will be tied with Universal Studios as Orlando's most screen-based park!

There are some applications where screens can't be beat, and technology should be embraced when it's results are superior.
Now, yes - I certainly agree that there are instances in Disney as well as Uni, where screens are over used, and Rat appears to be one of them.
But for this restaurant, it's launch and the views out of the restaurant windows - the technology of screens is unbeatable.
You couldn't come close to the realism here with physical sets.

 

[Tom Morrow]

And now it’s all WDW is building.

And I didn’t mention Rise. In fact, if you look above, I defended it. But come on, Na’Vi has a whopping one AA. It’s screen based.

And as for Uni having a higher percentage of screen rides - that’s interesting. The least screen-based park in Orlando is MK, with only 10% of its attractions reliant on a screen. But the next is IOA with 22% screen-based attractions. And Universal Studios is the most screen-reliant park, but only because it has one fewer attraction overall then MGM or EPCOT - all three parks have 8 screen rides. The difference comes out to 53% for US and 50% for the two WDW parks. Resort-wide, Uni is more screen reliant (but screen-based rides are nowhere near a majority), 36% to 22%, but that’s entirely due to MK. Compare Uni to the three newer WDW parks, and Uni is significantly less screen-heavy.

So yeah, WDW doesn’t have a huge amount to gloat about on the screen front.

PS: I forgot Rat! When that finally opens, EPCOT will be tied with Universal Studios as Orlando's most screen-based park!

Na'Vi is NOT screen based. There are, I think, three screens and they are set dressing or an animation behind physical sets. As others said, it absolutely needs more animatronics but no, it is not a "screen ride". Rides like Nemo and Gran Fiesta Tour is where it gets a little muddier, as you still technically have a ride with physical setpieces even if the screens are turned off, as opposed to Universal's screen attractions where you wouldn't have a show scene at all if the screen was off. Before you mention Spider-Man and the like having physical setpieces as well, the ride vehicles whiz by them and park at the screens.

Literal films like Reflections of China, Impressions de France, or O' Canada should not be included in the count in a discussion about rides. These films are more exhibits than anything. By my count, Epcot has three rides that are undeniably screen rides (Mission: SPACE, Soarin', Ratatouille), and two that are arguably one way or the other (Nemo, Gran Fiesta Tour).

 

[Casper Gutman]

Na'Vi is NOT screen based. There are, I think, three screens and they are set dressing or an animation behind physical sets. As others said, it absolutely needs more animatronics but no, it is not a "screen ride". Rides like Nemo and Gran Fiesta Tour is where it gets a little muddier, as you still technically have a ride with physical setpieces even if the screens are turned off, as opposed to Universal's screen attractions where you wouldn't have a show scene at all if the screen was off. Before you mention Spider-Man and the like having physical setpieces as well, the ride vehicles whiz by them and park at the screens.

Literal films like Reflections of China, Impressions de France, or O' Canada should not be included in the count in a discussion about rides. These films are more exhibits than anything. By my count, Epcot has three rides that are undeniably screen rides (Mission: SPACE, Soarin', Ratatouille), and two that are arguably one way or the other (Nemo, Gran Fiesta Tour).

You’re striving to make arbitrary distinctions here. I didn’t actually count Nemo as screen based, but Gran Fiesta absolutely is. Spidey has just as many integral (and much more elaborate) physical sets - the loading bay with the Spidey Signal, the truck, the floating Liberty head, the exploding bridge, etc - the only reason to attempt a distinction is because you want to count one and not the other.

And their is no reason not to count EPCOTs movies, which are touted as attractions. If you eliminate them, EPCOTs ride count plummets. And does that also eliminate Shrek? What about Fallon? How much does a theatre need to move before it stops being an “exhibit?”

 

[Hawg G]

I think most of the screens in NRJ are blended pretty well except the first one with the panther looking creatures, that one just screams screen projection to me.

I think a lot of folks forget that early Epcot used a decent amount of screens too (looking at you Universe of Energy, Wonders of Life pavilion, and even Horizons had the IMAX segment). I’m okay with some screens being used, I just hope they are there to augment practical effects rather than the entire show (FoP being my exception). The Fast and Furious, Kong, Jimmy Fallon, Spider-Man, and Simpsons style rides at Uni just don’t do it for me.

To lump Spider-man in with the rest of those shows your bias.

 

[No Name]

Yeah, why can’t they move away from screens with rides like Rat… er… Smugglers Run… um… MMRR… wait… Tron… you know what, never mind.

(For the record, I think MMRR is pretty close to a masterpiece, but the “screen” line will remain no matter what the two resorts actually build.)

Also, do people really prefer Disney’s PR tone - over-inflated self-important faux reverence and a hypocritical exploitation of the nostalgia they otherwise ignore - to Uni’s silly snark?

I mean I’m not exactly sure what your point is. While both companies use screens to varying degrees of success, no theme park is as overwhelmed by them as Universal Studios Florida is.

But yeah I don’t think Disney’s PR tone is any better.

 

[No Name]

The Bourne Stuntacular at Universal is the best blend of screens and physical things I’ve ever seen. It’s incredibly impressive.