News Test Track to be reimagined

[James Alucobond]

what about a really fast omnimover?

Could be a really fun load/unload disaster to witness, I guess.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Can we get some animatronics please?

I'll even take the Bird and Robot show coming back to the exit area.

 

[JoeCamel]

It could be better though. I think they should expand the track.

They could use the old monorail footers......

 

[sedati]

It could be better though. I think they should expand the track.

I’ve always dreamed of it making another loop around the building.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Test Track should be shut down because of how noisy Space 220 is from the tracks being so close!!!!!!

 

[No Name]

I think enclosing the only part of the one ride in the entire park that’s not indoors would be a mistake.

Getting rid of the canopy out front would be a big improvement.

You are not a friend of shade.

 

[celluloid]

Neglected and outdated are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Marc Davis Fan]

Personally, while I think it would be a great idea to enclose it, I would rather them spend the money on excellent indoor physical sets instead.

Maybe GM - which apparently thinks this is worthwhile investment - will offer enough budget for both...

 

[flynnibus]

Ah yes, the myth of outdated EPCOT Center…

It's no myth..

You called?

Let's debunk your debunking... You suggest calling 'EPCOT outdated' a myth and support your POV by outlining how the premise and theme of the classic rides were still relevant, and blame lack of 'care' (as a wide catch-all for lack of refreshes) and later Eisner initiatives for the destruction of things you claim were salvagable.

But here is how your argument falls down. You never address the actual ATTRACTION as being dated or not...

Your entire punch line is a nitpick that play out like a fanboi love letter instead of facing the actual world and customer of the time.

instead of looking at the attraction presentation, it's format, it's tech, it's style, etc.. you use a generalization that your 'care' category could have somehow kept the attractions relevant like IASW or pirates have been... yet fail to dig into WHY those AA attractions are able to stay interesting to modern audiences while other AA heavy attractions quickly needed saving as the world around them changed.

Rather than acknowledge those rides were in desperate need of overhauls.. you focus on a point of 'the premise is still relevant, so we must call the idea of them being outdated a myth'. A ride that is desperately in need of a refresh and rework is still outdated, even if you still kept the attraction concept the same (like SSE).

FutureWorld even when new, was heavily criticized for elements like the repetition of the show format - and as you acknowledge, WoM and SSE hid it the least. Most of these shows that didn't survive all carried this same narrated slow moving history lesson format. Once the awe factor is removed... that common thread becomes a weakness because simply put... how many of the same thing could guests appreciate? That's why the format can survive in SSE, because it's largely on it's own now, instead of having 4 more of it all around it grating people down.

You completely miss the entire society topic as well... probably because you didn't actually experienced any of these attractions or the time frame, did you? The tone and how people were addressed was changing rapidly.. no more droning stiff collars, we were moving towards the Rad 90s. The narration and format felt dull and flat vs everything else that was emerging at the time. Living Seas and UoE were the worst in terms of feeling more like a 1984 reading... than entertainment.

The show tech itself... no more was just spinning silhouettes going to cut it. The film elements in all of the classic attractions really stood out as dated and stale. Every representation of what contemporary felt more 70s, than 80s and into the 90s. It felt more Disco->Syn Pop... and less futuristic. 1983 Tron graphics didn't inspire people anymore. AA figures needed advancement and lagged the newer innovations.

Early EPCOT Future World was able to wow everyone with scale and new. But by the late 80s.. the new was gone, the settings all felt woefully dated to society, the futurism was dated and not in sync with culture of the time.

As fans we all love Future World for it's ambition, it's scale, it's setting, it's uniqueness, and the work of some of the most famous imagineers. These things are all great. But they don't counter act many of the realities that matter to the gen pop that the parks rely on.

So yes, you are correct the themes behind the pavilions like Communications, Transportation, Energy, etc were not outdated - but that doesn't mean the attractions themselves at the time were not. And even if you say "well they just had to update them" -- Yes, that's exactly it.. they needed major overhauls of all major portions, story, tech, and style.. and that's why they were in fact outdated by the early 90s.

Arguing over how they could have been saved vs replaced, is a different argument... but doesn't negate that the pavilions were all due and their late 70s and early 80s look, tone, and tech were all hanging out as stale. So no, it's NOT a myth that Future World was outdated.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

You are not a friend of shade.

Hey, I like throwing shade!

But you don't need something as big and tall as the Transportation building itself to cover the outside queue from the sun and rain.

 

[Earlie the Pearlie]

It's no myth..



Let's debunk your debunking... You suggest calling 'EPCOT outdated' a myth and support your POV by outlining how the premise and theme of the classic rides were still relevant, and blame lack of 'care' (as a wide catch-all for lack of refreshes) and later Eisner initiatives for the destruction of things you claim were salvagable.

But here is how your argument falls down. You never address the actual ATTRACTION as being dated or not...

Your entire punch line is a nitpick that play out like a fanboi love letter instead of facing the actual world and customer of the time.

instead of looking at the attraction presentation, it's format, it's tech, it's style, etc.. you use a generalization that your 'care' category could have somehow kept the attractions relevant like IASW or pirates have been... yet fail to dig into WHY those AA attractions are able to stay interesting to modern audiences while other AA heavy attractions quickly needed saving as the world around them changed.

Rather than acknowledge those rides were in desperate need of overhauls.. you focus on a point of 'the premise is still relevant, so we must call the idea of them being outdated a myth'. A ride that is desperately in need of a refresh and rework is still outdated, even if you still kept the attraction concept the same (like SSE).

FutureWorld even when new, was heavily criticized for elements like the repetition of the show format - and as you acknowledge, WoM and SSE hid it the least. Most of these shows that didn't survive all carried this same narrated slow moving history lesson format. Once the awe factor is removed... that common thread becomes a weakness because simply put... how many of the same thing could guests appreciate? That's why the format can survive in SSE, because it's largely on it's own now, instead of having 4 more of it all around it grating people down.

You completely miss the entire society topic as well... probably because you didn't actually experienced any of these attractions or the time frame, did you? The tone and how people were addressed was changing rapidly.. no more droning stiff collars, we were moving towards the Rad 90s. The narration and format felt dull and flat vs everything else that was emerging at the time. Living Seas and UoE were the worst in terms of feeling more like a 1984 reading... than entertainment.

The show tech itself... no more was just spinning silhouettes going to cut it. The film elements in all of the classic attractions really stood out as dated and stale. Every representation of what contemporary felt more 70s, than 80s and into the 90s. It felt more Disco->Syn Pop... and less futuristic. 1983 Tron graphics didn't inspire people anymore. AA figures needed advancement and lagged the newer innovations.

Early EPCOT Future World was able to wow everyone with scale and new. But by the late 80s.. the new was gone, the settings all felt woefully dated to society, the futurism was dated and not in sync with culture of the time.

As fans we all love Future World for it's ambition, it's scale, it's setting, it's uniqueness, and the work of some of the most famous imagineers. These things are all great. But they don't counter act many of the realities that matter to the gen pop that the parks rely on.

So yes, you are correct the themes behind the pavilions like Communications, Transportation, Energy, etc were not outdated - but that doesn't mean the attractions themselves at the time were not. And even if you say "well they just had to update them" -- Yes, that's exactly it.. they needed major overhauls of all major portions, story, tech, and style.. and that's why they were in fact outdated by the early 90s.

Arguing over how they could have been saved vs replaced, is a different argument... but doesn't negate that the pavilions were all due and their late 70s and early 80s look, tone, and tech were all hanging out as stale. So no, it's NOT a myth that Future World was outdated.

Good point
And I agree that UoE was always the worst offender, as was Living Seas. I think that if Ellen and Nemo made them more interesting (and they did) it was great to have them added. That being said it’s a shame that the educational value had to decline.

 

[flynnibus]

Good point
And I agree that UoE was always the worst offender, as was Living Seas. I think that if Ellen and Nemo made them more interesting (and they did) it was great to have them added. That being said it’s a shame that the educational value had to decline.

I think the point of 'bad' refreshes can sink a show even more, or create problems like aging them quickly is perfectly valid. But just because a refresh made things worse, doesn't invalidate a concern that the attraction was in a need to be redone in the first place.

The video's premise was that it was lack of 'care' and bad Eisner initiatives is what destroyed EPCOT, so the original EPCOT couldn't have been outdated. That is not a solid rationalization. The guy just gushed about what was great about the attractions, but failed to understand how the attractions really presented in their time and age. That's what happens when people just watch things decades later on video and have no context of their own.

Ideas can be timeless - that doesn't mean a specific incarnation of an attraction based on that idea is. Attractions like Pirates and IASW rely on concepts that every generation of the last 150yr years connect with easily. They rely on showcraft and staging that hasn't made itself stand out as obsolete while also getting entrenched as basically brand beacons. The pieces that are bad (like the rain in IASW) are outweighed by the greater emotional hook the rest of the attraction lands. The nostalgia acts as a defender that establishes an expectation that people should appreciate it. Those attractions also were able to run for decades before technology or cultural things challenged what they were built with.. so they got to create truly strong roots.

In the modern day, things move so quickly, no attraction has the luxury of the world basically moving at a crawl for 20yrs. They are facing challenges in 5-10. And the closer they are connected to contemporary topics, the harder it is for content to fight off feeling off.

Disney needs to show a lot more concepts to see what TT2.5 is gonna be... I still feel like this is just some bolt ons.

 

[EeyoreFan#24]

What’s the chances of eliminating the loop and replacing with a new addition off the side of the building or otherwise modifying the track. If the test theme goes away all together, the high speed bank test might not be on the list to retheme.

I think it’s a low chance, but I don’t know if it’s off the table.

 

[No Name]

What’s the chances of eliminating the loop and replacing with a new addition off the side of the building or otherwise modifying the track. If the test theme goes away all together, the high speed bank test might not be on the list to retheme.

I think it’s a low chance, but I don’t know if it’s off the table.

But why would they ever take away the most enjoyable part of the ride? What would they replace it with?

 

[UNCgolf]

Good point
And I agree that UoE was always the worst offender, as was Living Seas. I think that if Ellen and Nemo made them more interesting (and they did) it was great to have them added. That being said it’s a shame that the educational value had to decline.

I'd agree on UoE but strongly disagree on Living Seas -- nothing about the concept felt outdated in the early-mid 1990s, other than maybe the intro video itself. It was one of my favorite things anywhere at WDW as kid in that period.

Of course if that version of the Living Seas still existed today untouched it would be outdated due to some of the content and design style, but it could have been updated pretty easily without needing to change much (if anything) about the underlying concept. It was probably the easiest pavilion to update, other than maybe Spaceship Earth.

Nemo actually made it significantly worse; it finalized downgrading the pavilion into a simple aquarium and didn't really add anything (well, maybe Turtle Talk with Crush but not the Nemo ride).

 

[flynnibus]

I'd agree on UoE but strongly disagree on Living Seas -- nothing about the concept felt outdated in the early-mid 1990s, other than maybe the intro video itself. It was one of my favorite things anywhere at WDW as kid in that period.

The Seas is a good example of Disney creating something unique... but became less unique as other venues got better.

SciFi and film had actually been hitting very close with new realism in this era too. Think back.. The Abys was 1989.. just 3 years after Seas opened. Aquariums had gotten more advanced, while Disney had not really done anything fresher. Instead the fantasy of the pavilion had only regressed, with the abandonment of the exit hydrolaters... and the preshow was a horrible experience from the start.

The Seas remained great in part because not everyone had regional exposure to such kinds of experiences. The aquarium experience was great, but they really didn't cycle their exhibits and eventually the whole thing became tired. But this happened later than the OG FutureWorld attractions that were designed years earlier.

I don't berate what Nemo did to the pavilion... I am disappointed in what they've done with the aquarium experience in terms of keeping it fresh. And mourn the loss of the hydrolators and the fantasy more than anything. That was classic Disney imagineering.

 

[UNCgolf]

And mourn the loss of the hydrolators and the fantasy more than anything. That was classic Disney imagineering.

That's really the issue with the current Seas.

The fantasy was what made it so great. Of course you knew you hadn't actually traveled under the ocean to an underwater base (although it was incredibly convincing to smaller kids), but you also know you aren't actually flying on a creature in Flight of Passage.

It's just an aquarium now (with a bad and underutilized ride randomly bolted on), and while it's still decent one, it's not special or unique the way the Living Seas was. The pavilion's unifying concept really set it apart, and there's nothing else like it even now.

 

[DonniePeverley]

Hmmm...


Can they reimagine it back to how it was before they reimagined it ?

 

[MisterPenguin]

but you also know you aren't actually flying on a creature in Flight of Passage.

Yeah, but different illusions have different degrees of verisimilitude.

People scream on FoP during the 'drops' even though the RV only has a vertical range of 3 feet.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

It's no myth..



Let's debunk your debunking... You suggest calling 'EPCOT outdated' a myth and support your POV by outlining how the premise and theme of the classic rides were still relevant, and blame lack of 'care' (as a wide catch-all for lack of refreshes) and later Eisner initiatives for the destruction of things you claim were salvagable.

But here is how your argument falls down. You never address the actual ATTRACTION as being dated or not...

Your entire punch line is a nitpick that play out like a fanboi love letter instead of facing the actual world and customer of the time.

instead of looking at the attraction presentation, it's format, it's tech, it's style, etc.. you use a generalization that your 'care' category could have somehow kept the attractions relevant like IASW or pirates have been... yet fail to dig into WHY those AA attractions are able to stay interesting to modern audiences while other AA heavy attractions quickly needed saving as the world around them changed.

Rather than acknowledge those rides were in desperate need of overhauls.. you focus on a point of 'the premise is still relevant, so we must call the idea of them being outdated a myth'. A ride that is desperately in need of a refresh and rework is still outdated, even if you still kept the attraction concept the same (like SSE).

FutureWorld even when new, was heavily criticized for elements like the repetition of the show format - and as you acknowledge, WoM and SSE hid it the least. Most of these shows that didn't survive all carried this same narrated slow moving history lesson format. Once the awe factor is removed... that common thread becomes a weakness because simply put... how many of the same thing could guests appreciate? That's why the format can survive in SSE, because it's largely on it's own now, instead of having 4 more of it all around it grating people down.

You completely miss the entire society topic as well... probably because you didn't actually experienced any of these attractions or the time frame, did you? The tone and how people were addressed was changing rapidly.. no more droning stiff collars, we were moving towards the Rad 90s. The narration and format felt dull and flat vs everything else that was emerging at the time. Living Seas and UoE were the worst in terms of feeling more like a 1984 reading... than entertainment.

The show tech itself... no more was just spinning silhouettes going to cut it. The film elements in all of the classic attractions really stood out as dated and stale. Every representation of what contemporary felt more 70s, than 80s and into the 90s. It felt more Disco->Syn Pop... and less futuristic. 1983 Tron graphics didn't inspire people anymore. AA figures needed advancement and lagged the newer innovations.

Early EPCOT Future World was able to wow everyone with scale and new. But by the late 80s.. the new was gone, the settings all felt woefully dated to society, the futurism was dated and not in sync with culture of the time.

As fans we all love Future World for it's ambition, it's scale, it's setting, it's uniqueness, and the work of some of the most famous imagineers. These things are all great. But they don't counter act many of the realities that matter to the gen pop that the parks rely on.

So yes, you are correct the themes behind the pavilions like Communications, Transportation, Energy, etc were not outdated - but that doesn't mean the attractions themselves at the time were not. And even if you say "well they just had to update them" -- Yes, that's exactly it.. they needed major overhauls of all major portions, story, tech, and style.. and that's why they were in fact outdated by the early 90s.

Arguing over how they could have been saved vs replaced, is a different argument... but doesn't negate that the pavilions were all due and their late 70s and early 80s look, tone, and tech were all hanging out as stale. So no, it's NOT a myth that Future World was outdated.

I don't recall what my exact words were, but I thought it was pretty clear that I was addressing the people who are always parroting that Future World didn't work because technology caught up to the rides, which I've illustrated were mostly focused on history.

I agree that the delivery was often dry, which could easily be fixed by updated narration. Animatronics could have been updated like they've been in many Disney classics to stop the attractions from "feeling" old. I'm not sure what you disagree with. Almost all of the issues you brought up could have been fixed with minor improvements or a few changes to show scenes here and there. I take your point that Future World was a bit over-saturated with the same tone, but I think that each attraction would have became more distinguished over time and additional experiences, including thrilling ones would have easily fixed that problem and balanced the park out better.