Survey

Do you agree with IPs in Epcot?


  • Total voters
    99

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
Ips can work for sure. While sea base alpha might be my most missed part of Epcot. I don't mind the Nemo overlay. I wish the ride portion was more than just a, oh no Nemos lost again! Forzen is the absolute oposite of how an Ip should be used. Just shoe horning something in for the sake of it, terrible. I think Coco could work well in mexico if done right and I think Remy coming to France is fine as well. Guardians I have concerns with, but its hard to say as we know almost nothing about it yet.
 

BoarderPhreak

Well-Known Member
Not really. I mean, if it fits the theme/location I suppose... But Frozen is an ugly result. So was The Three Caballeros. We'll see how Ratatouille works out, but I'm not holding my breath. Either way, I think it's a better idea for DHS or maybe MK.
 

disneyworlddad

Well-Known Member
Not really. I mean, if it fits the theme/location I suppose... But Frozen is an ugly result. So was The Three Caballeros. We'll see how Ratatouille works out, but I'm not holding my breath. Either way, I think it's a better idea for DHS or maybe MK.

I hope Remy quasi takes you on a tour of France/Paris. The movie started in the country so why can't the ride and then move in to Paris. Hopefully it is based based around food/wine. France has this great food/wine culture, how about showcasing it in a ride. You can obviously use little things from the movie to help keep the kids happy/entertained.
 

JIMINYCR

Well-Known Member
I voted no because EP was never meant to be a park themed for them. Disney is putting them in because its easier to do that than to come up with a proper plan for the park. And because of the way Disney is doing it. They tend to rush/throw them in to take advantage of the popularity wave they happen to be on instead of really taking their time to develop something of quality and theming.
 

KBLovedDisney

Well-Known Member
I voted no because EP was never meant to be a park themed for them. Disney is putting them in because its easier to do that than to come up with a proper plan for the park. And because of the way Disney is doing it. They tend to rush/throw them in to take advantage of the popularity wave they happen to be on instead of really taking their time to develop something of quality and theming.
Like Hollywood and all of their reboots/rehashes/"bring-back-because-we-can't-come-up-with-anything-else"ers:

To me, installing direct IPs = Loss of Imagination.

Well, we did already kind of lose Imagination...
 

correcaminos

Well-Known Member
Sadly and apparently, the old purpose of existence wasn't working either for the fans or for Disney as a whole. Epcot even at is earliest days was about entertainment and for a short time it was working with the edutainment mission. That stopped and now we have a choice of losing Epcot completely or seeing a new face and purpose. There are many things in life that change and we either throw our hands up in despair or we go with the flow and find the enjoyment in what actually exists. When it gets to the point were I can no longer enjoy that park, I will surely move on to someplace else. Lamenting what is no longer has absolutely no influence on what actually exists. You actually hit upon the problem. Who wants to pay upward of $100.00+ to be educated while on vacation. They have places for that, they are called colleges.

I think Edutainment is a good word. I don't ever recall it being just 'entertainment' though and I've been going regularly since it opened. I loved the Edutainment of it all and honestly I think the issue is that when the sponsors got harder, they tried less. They closed things without replacing or they watered down to a pathetic level.

It was awesome for many years, now while we love it, it's not as great as it used to be. Not everything has to be complete entertainment though. Many museums and such do wonderful without it being just entertainment. I think it's a sad reflection on society if people need it all the time. Not everything educational is boring.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I think Edutainment is a good word. I don't ever recall it being just 'entertainment' though and I've been going regularly since it opened. I loved the Edutainment of it all and honestly I think the issue is that when the sponsors got harder, they tried less. They closed things without replacing or they watered down to a pathetic level.

It was awesome for many years, now while we love it, it's not as great as it used to be. Not everything has to be complete entertainment though. Many museums and such do wonderful without it being just entertainment. I think it's a sad reflection on society if people need it all the time. Not everything educational is boring.
It wasn't, but, it was still supposed to be entertaining to the point that you didn't know you were being educated. That was where it all failed for many. I agree not only is educational not necessarily boring you have to want to be educated before it becomes something you want. In my opinion, when EPCOT opened Disney really were convinced that they could make serious education interesting to the masses. They were able to convince a few of us that it was true, but, there were more of the people that didn't feel that way and quickly caught on the 45 minute lectures like the Universe of Energy was indeed not real entertaining and very much educational not to mention biased.

Museums have different expectations then a Disney Theme Park. Many of us really enjoyed it. However, it wasn't all of us. Even myself... I really didn't like UoE (aka.. Exxon commercial) and even though the first part of Imagination was over the top great, it became a look at your watch and want the end to get here quicker, type experience for me. Horizons was good (except the ending which was a good idea just not well executed) and to me had no can't wait to see it again factor. WoM was funny little romp though the history of transportation, very entertaining and fun to see over and over until either the public or GM wanted something more exciting. (probably a combo of the two, I would think). Spaceship Earth has always been my favorite since the beginning, but, I am at a loss to see where the "fall off the cliff re-entry" was anything but a snooze fest designed to make you forget that you were going really steeply downhill, backwards. The city scape and the song "Tomorrows Child were the two highlights of the trip back down to earth.

Seas, when it finally got there had a big challenge and that was to make an aquarium something other then fish swimming around. They did a fine job of creating the atmosphere by the use of the Omni ride... much shorter back then. It mostly went through the middle of the aquarium in a plastic tube (still does it's just that Nemo is blocking all the real animal views now). You could see sharks swimming right overhead. The Hydrolators were a fantastic addition that actually made you feel like you were descending into the depths of the ocean. Realistic enough that someone once tried to sue Disney because they moved downward to fast and they had some ear problem because of it. Don't remember the exact details, but, it was very funny and in all likelihood a totally alternate fact story.

So even though there is nothing wrong with edutainment, it wasn't accepted as widely as was needed to support EPCOT along with the fact the technology started (right after opening) advancing so fast that Disney would not be able to keep up with it in stationary show scenes.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
On the flipside, I think it's also wrong to expect Epcot (perhaps less so the other parks) to be more like Six Flags or Busch Gardens... Even Universal. People love their thrill rides, but Disney was never purely about that.
That is true and there is no indication that Epcot will ever go entirely in the direction. However, change had to happen or they would have just used the area as a parking lot for Star Wars Land. I hardly feel that adding Frozen or the Rat Chef or even GotG is making it a six flags or even close to IOA.
 

graphite1326

Well-Known Member
Ok to get back on topic before a grammer war breaks out, I voted "I don't care". I like change and things new. I hated that film in Norway and still can't stand the one in France. They are two days older than Jesus himself, outdated and corny. I'd much rather have an entertaining movie ride like Frozen than that dated crap.

Just me.
To get back on topic before a grammar war breaks out. I voted "I don't care." Although I like change and things new, I hated that film in Norway and still can't stand the one in France. They are outdated, corny, and are two days older than Jesus himself. I'd much rather have an entertaining movie ride like Frozen rather than that dated crap.

LOL just kidding around.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Anyone who answered "No" doesn't understand what IP is. Horizons is IP. World of Motion is IP. Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow is IP. The World Showcase is IP. Figment is IP. "The 21st century begins October 1, 1982" is IP.
 

righttrack

Well-Known Member
I voted "I don't care" really if it were an option, my vote would be "it depends". If it means new, amazing cutting edge attractions, I'm happy to get them no matter the theme. If it means an overall re-missioning of Epcot Center then I'm against that.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
No really, I don't know what IP means.
Let's take it one step further... Intellectual property means an idea that someone has had at some time or the other. An idea, attraction, show, what to wear in the morning is an IP in reality. There is not a thing that isn't somebody's IP. Snow White, Peter Pan, Mary Poppins, Figment, Horizons, all IP's. The Snow White attraction, movie, etc. just like Peter Pan Attraction, Movie and Mary Poppins Movie was a Disney IP to make it an Attraction, Movie, etc. of the original IP which was somebody else's idea. Horizons, Figment, Dreamfinder was a Disney IP and skipped the part were Disney paid money to use someone else's IP. (Well, except for the fact that they paid an imagineer to think of it.) It really isn't all that confusing and even less important as to whose original idea it was. If it is good and it is fun and it is done well that is all that should be necessary.
 
Last edited:

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
I'm coming in from left field, Intellectual property at Epcot? Can someone expound exactly the issue is?
Near as I can tell, Walt's original vision for EPCOT was clean and pure as the wind driven snow, handed down on stone tablets by God Himself. When EPCOT Center opened, nothing like what Walt had conceived for it to be, it was also clean and pure as the wind driven snow. From that day forward, nothing was ever to be changed, lest we ruin the park completely unrelated to Walt Disney's vision.

Unfortunately, Satan and his minions, in their master plan to corrupt the human race, have dispatched Bob Iger to ruin the clean and pure vision of EPCOT, mangling it into the monstrosity vulgarly called Epcot by including such scandalous "intellectual property" -- I think that's between gluttony and pride in the deadly sins -- as Mary Poppins and Frozen. This has destroyed EPCOT and humanity no longer has any hope.

I mean, at least that's my interpretation. YMMV.
 
Last edited:

correcaminos

Well-Known Member
Anyone who answered "No" doesn't understand what IP is. Horizons is IP. World of Motion is IP. Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow is IP. The World Showcase is IP. Figment is IP. "The 21st century begins October 1, 1982" is IP.
I take it to mean pre-existing IPs not the way you are stating
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom