The NEW Epcot

[DisneyJill]

Yep - with 12 theatre cars (on a good day :lol: )

For a complete look at how the pavilion operates have a look at this excellent site http://www.energy.planet7.org/companion/top/intro.htm

Look under `pavilion` for specifics on how it all works

hcwalker - sounds like a good read, but I`m not sure where in the boards is the best place... maybe post it in the chit chat thread? Or ask an administrator where would they suggest? I`d like to read it.

Thanks, Marni! How interesting! :wave:

 

[cloudboy]

Thrill Ride: An amusement attraction that creates excitement by causing an adrenalin increase using motion and sensory stimulus.

Sometimes it is hard to understand what was lost, if you have never experienced what was lost in the first place and have nothing to relate it to. The original Epcot is usually referred to as educational, and yes, in it’s way, it was. But it was not educational in the way that a class is educational, regurgitating facts and concepts. It was educational in the way that it stimulated your mind – it got you thinking about the subject.

For instance, Horizons did not tell you what the future was going to be like. Yes, it gave you a bit of an introduction to the history of future. But what it really did was to get the guest thinking about the future. It inspired you to dream, to become optimistic about the great big beautiful tomorrow. And that was what Epcot was originally about – inspiration.

And that is where rides like Mission:Space and even, I dare say, Soarin’ fail. They aren’t inspirational – they don’t get you thinking the way the old rides did – you just experience them – turn off your critical mind and just let the senses cause a rush, and then it is over. Some people say they don’t want to go on vacation and think – thinking is a dirty word, unenjoyable, hard. Epcot made it fun, and something you couldn’t help but do.

Epcot was different from the other parks – it was a place that inspired thinking and creativity – not zoning out and letting someone else do the thinking and imagining for you. This is where I see many of the newer rides failing. Take Pirates of the Caribbean, for instance. The story itself is vague, barely there. What the ride is, is a setting – a story line where you put yourself there and make up your own story. Watch little kids read you a story – they look at the pictures and make up their own stories from there – their imaginations are going full tilt. Somewhere we forgot about that. We get more and more involved in creating a story until you no longer are park of it, but just a spectator. Yes, we are technically the subject, but we have no emotion involvement with it – all our thinking is already done for us.

Perhaps the beast rides were not about the story line. Perhaps they were about the story world.

 

[bigbadwolf]

I fully agree with the Imagination ones! I loved the ride in 2001, it was soooo cool. Then we went this time (2005) and Figment was there...it was AWEFUL!

I like Figment and all... but puting him back ruined some effectson the ride.. They even used to take your picture! That is gone now... So are the water on upside down house effects.

 

[Brooke]

I personally believe that EPCOT has gotten better with the additions of Test Track and Mission:Space. The rides are seemingly very popular and they fit in with the theme of Future World better than their predecessor did. These rides also bring more thrillseekers to EPCOT.

 

[ZHoyt]

Thanks for the great discussion Marni, it is rare to have such an even intelligent debate on a message board. Now let me reply to your post.

For want of a better word, Walt Disney Productions did the dirty on a lot of people when they didn`t build a prototype community of tomorrow. In many ways, their reasons were very valid, but in changing their ideas after gaining the Reedy Creek Charter, having the state pay for so much infrastructure work etc seems even today to say `thanks for our own government, now we will build a theme park, not a city, to make more money`.

I don't want to get off topic here, but it's important to remember that the state of Florida gained exponentially from Disney coming to town. If nothing but the Magic Kingdom was built, there investment in this infrastructure would have been reasonable. WDW took the state of Florida to another level.

Not wishing to sound harsh (I would never do that, not to Walt) but he left behind a huge problem with no soloution. Maybe E.P.C.O.T was a good idea, but as a separate entity from WDW, even from Orlando. Building it in WDW was a no win situation, and WDP knew this. And so the plans changed bit by bit, with the corporate sponsored industrial park becoming a corporate sponsored theme park (although sponsorship was nothing new.. who helped paid for Disneyland?) until in 1975 the bombshell dropped, funnily enough at a convention in The Contemporary Resort. EPCOT will be a themepark. No community. I`m a great believer in the real E.P.C.O.T was already everywhere in WDW, but that`s for another thread.

I personally don't think E.P.C.O.T. was the marvel everyone else does. Do you really want to live in a domed city? But that is off topic and really out of my depth of knowledge. We're talking about the park, not the city.

It is true that Disney parks have always had sponsorships and corporate partnerships. But EPCOT Center took it to a new level. We no longer got rides brought to us by corporations, we got commercials. The only exceptions in the original EPCOT were Horizons, and JII. The rest of the attractions told us how the world was a wild beast, and only through technology (the kind offered by whichever corporation was sponsoring the attraction) could we tame it. You may call this "factual, educational, and fun" but the problem is, who is teaching us? What are the real messages they want to get through to us? What aren't they telling us? Only when you start to analyze the corporate EPCOT in these terms can you it's core pedagogical problems. And there is of course it's major problem of redundancy where every ride is VERY similar every other ride.

Test Track is technically a fantastic ride, for example, but what merit to the majority of people does how cars are tested have compared to the evoloution of transport as a whole?

This is something that comes down to opinion. I personally found the peak-behind-the-scenes look at the car industry much more enjoyable than the canned history of WOM. I think the condensed history that was in WOM is about as informative as the horrible American Adventure. Cliff notes versions of history enacted by AA's are not an effective method of education. TT may not tackle such huge issues, but at least it doesn't bite off more than it can chew.

Perhaps if EPCOT Center had been called something else, perhaps if things had taken a different direction, things would be different. Todays Epcot is being fragmented by its very roots.

Epcot is not being fragmented by its roots. It is evolving, and people don't like change. They don't like things they hold dear to be changed or eliminated.

Horizons offered a hopeful glimpse into the future, a collection of all the themes in futureworld. It became greater than the sum of its parts, it had the original `Disney` feel to it - promising story, fantastic theming, deep backstory and an easy to follow, immersive storyline, told out in great sets, Animatronics, special effects, and provided so much `food for thought` long after you had ridden it. I`m not saying it would be the same today, indeed even if the theme (and building) was to have remained the whole lot needed a HUGE refurb, but to replace it with a smaller attraction that gives a big bang for a few minutes, then is instantly forgettable, is plain wrong. It wasn`t necessarily the nuts and bolts of the ride that meant so much, it was the emmotion, the lasting memories of the people and lifestyles it portrayed that made its mark. TT, M:S, Soarin` and EEA all sufer from this - they are great, if not superb, rides for what they are, for 30 minutes or so, but are shallow and seriously lacking in emotion and lasting impressions.

For ease I will break this into short responses to select points.
1) promising story in Horizons? What story? A story about getting together for a futuristic birthday party? That is the only real continuity in the scenes besides that they are all "futuristic".
2) backstory? I'm lost here. Are you talking about the supposed continuation of COP or the tying in of the other FW attractions?
3) what food for thought did this provide? "wouldn't it be great if we had schools underwater and farms in the desert?" I don't buy it. This ride left about as much food for thought as M:S does. M:S talks about colonizing Mars. Why isn't that food for thought? Mars exploration is something going on now, and in the near future. Horizons was sci-fi dreaming.
4) what emotion is there in Horizons? What attachment do you have to these characters. I don't think they even had names, let alone real personalities to attach yourself to. I think you get just as much attachment to your Mother and Father narrators as you get with the narrators in M:S and TT.

I loved EPCOT Center the 3 times I was fortunate to visit it before it lost its way - so much so I made a scale model of it 18 years ago (was it THAT long ago!!) and yes I do miss it. I would be a fool though to wish it was exactly the same. My point is a lot of the changes have not been uniform, have diluted the theme to the point of non existence, and have been cheap alternatives to the changes that could have (and were proposed to have) been made.

Here you admit your bias. You have serious attachment to the old EPCOT. There's nothing wrong with that, I have fond memories of it too. But I think it is clouding your judgment in regards to new developments at the park. You probably know more about these proposed changes than I, but I personally think both for the overall quality and the future longevity of the park, the recent changes have been all for the good. Maybe it's not perfect, but neither was EPCOT Center.

Thanks again for the great debate; I look forward to your response though I'm afraid I don't have much time to reply as I'm quite busy lately.

 

[cloudboy]

Interesting comments ZHoyt. And perhaps it shows exactly why people either loved the old Epcot and hate the new one, or hated the old and love the new.

It's interesting how you immediately hit upon corporate sponsorship and how they are pushing technology and it's all just a front. Back when Epcot was first built, the future was exciting - something we looked forward to. Over the last 20 years, though, it has become something we dread. Technology is necessary evil we would rather not think about. I find it rather ironic that many people look back to the fifties as an ideal time, when in fact it was a time of blatant selling of technology. Think of the World's Fairs and Motorama.

You talk about the behind the scenes look at Test Track, and the boring story of transportation of WOM. Yet what difference is there between Test Track and clip of the assembly line and car testing from Sesame Street, The History Channel or GM's latest advertisement? It is only the thrill of ride itself - the motion bit, that makes it interesting.

We have become more aware of the world around us, how things work, we have in fact gotten much more educated than we were when Epcot opened. So yes the stories and subjects are a bit simplistic. but this can change. You can still get into a deeper subjet without having to resort to thrills.

You seem to not get the storys in the old Epcot rides. They were never meant to be "stories" like we want today - to be lead along. You were supposed to imagine yourself in those environments - not what is goin on in that underwater city, but what would it be like to live there. What would it be like to live on a space station? What would it have been like to live at the time when written records were being destroyed - you litterally had no recollection of your past, no knowledge to learn from.

It maynot be everyone's cup of tea. But that is fine, because it was different. Why replicate something else for the same grou of people? There are more people in this world than those who enjoy the adrenalin rush of a thrill ride. And there is very little out there in Walt Disney World for them. Disney can't simply lock itself away and survive on the group of ride junkies that it attracts now. It has to grow - bring in people who otherwise would shun Disney. It needs to expand, to offer new things, not just a exciting new rehash of an old thrill.

 

[ZHoyt]

It's interesting how you immediately hit upon corporate sponsorship and how they are pushing technology and it's all just a front. Back when Epcot was first built, the future was exciting - something we looked forward to. Over the last 20 years, though, it has become something we dread. Technology is necessary evil we would rather not think about. I find it rather ironic that many people look back to the fifties as an ideal time, when in fact it was a time of blatant selling of technology. Think of the World's Fairs and Motorama.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a "front", but the rides definitely used rhetoric to push corporate agendas. This doesn't detract from their entertainment value. Don't get me wrong, I loved old EPCOT. Horizons was easily my favorite ride. I'm just trying to balance things out and debunk the mythic status of these attractions (and the general park ideology) that had some major flaws. This goes back to the spiritual parent of Futureworld, COP, which was originally a rotating ad for General Electric. Of course corporations and technology don't always equate to evil. My real qualm is that EPCOT in it's original form veered from Disney telling stories to corporations telling stories. Corporations tell stories to improve their image and sell their product. Disney's stories ARE their product so they tell them with the purpose of being as entertaining as possible. EPCOT became a compromise between the two. It is in some cases STILL a compromise. Test Track is the case in point. The improvement of TT over WOM in my mind is that TT tells about what GM does. WOM tells about how humans can't live without GM. There is still plenty of ideology getting through in TT, but much less than the original show. This isn't to put down WOM. I loved WOM. It was a great attraction. But if EPCOT was to evolve into a better overall park, it needed to go.

You talk about the behind the scenes look at Test Track, and the boring story of transportation of WOM. Yet what difference is there between Test Track and clip of the assembly line and car testing from Sesame Street, The History Channel or GM's latest advertisement? It is only the thrill of ride itself - the motion bit, that makes it interesting.

I don't really think the story of transportation is boring. The only original ride at EPCOT that was boring was UoE. I just think that a) it was way too similar to SE, and b) the history of transportation is a very broad topic that is less adequately covered in a theme park attraction than the topic of auto testing in TT. Sure you can learn about that in other formats. You can learn the same things presented in WOM in other formats as well. It is true that the difference is the ride experience. Just like the difference between a textbook on the history of transportation and the AA scenes in WOM.

We have become more aware of the world around us, how things work, we have in fact gotten much more educated than we were when Epcot opened. So yes the stories and subjects are a bit simplistic. but this can change. You can still get into a deeper subjet without having to resort to thrills.

Just like Marni you reveal your bias here. You say thrills are something to resort to. Like they are a plague to be stayed away from. I say, Big Thunder Mountain tells an equally good story as Peter Pan. By that measure, TT tells an equally good story as WOM. If the story and lesson told are equal, isn't this really just boiling down to preferring AA based attractions vs. more thrill oriented rides?

You seem to not get the storys in the old Epcot rides. They were never meant to be "stories" like we want today - to be lead along. You were supposed to imagine yourself in those environments - not what is goin on in that underwater city, but what would it be like to live there. What would it be like to live on a space station? What would it have been like to live at the time when written records were being destroyed - you litterally had no recollection of your past, no knowledge to learn from.

How about - what would it be like to go an a voyage to Mars? And then you actually EXPERIENCE it as opposed to just pondering. I understand you were supposed to imagine the possibilities in these ideas. But that is not really a story. Marni claimed Horizons had a wonderful, engaging story. This is simply not true. It had a series of loosely tied together vignettes.

It maynot be everyone's cup of tea. But that is fine, because it was different. Why replicate something else for the same grou of people? There are more people in this world than those who enjoy the adrenalin rush of a thrill ride. And there is very little out there in Walt Disney World for them. Disney can't simply lock itself away and survive on the group of ride junkies that it attracts now. It has to grow - bring in people who otherwise would shun Disney. It needs to expand, to offer new things, not just a exciting new rehash of an old thrill.

I agree it may not be everyone's cup of tea. In that case, why not create something for everyone? The Magic Kingdom would certainly be less interesting if every ride was a dark ride. Adding things like the Mountains, or The Enchanted Tiki Room, etc etc brings variety to guests. When EPCOT opened however (I believe) there was Horizons, UoE, SE, WOM, The Land, and JII. I don't count Communicore. SE, WOM, JII, and Horizons were all the same basic ride system. Living With the Land and UoE were slight variations. While I don't doubt the quality of these originals (minus UoE's original films), the fact remains that the park didn't offer a variety of ride-types. Yes the rides were all different (although many were strikingly similar), but the ride systems were all basically the same. Now I don't want this to turn into a debate about ride systems etc, I'm just making a quick point.

To go back to your post, you say Disney is just offering rehashes of old thrills. Personally I find M:S to be pretty unique. TT is also fairly unique. I can't think of similar rides anywhere.

Let me get to the real point. I strongly believe that most people on this board who have a strong attachment to old EPCOT are sending up smoke screens. They talk about story, emotion, education, etc. But what it really comes down to is a preference (possibly due to nostalgia kicking in) towards AA centered rides. There is nothing wrong with this. I love AA rides. I loved WOM and Horizons. But my love for things past doesn't cloud my judgement on future developments. All I'm trying to say is to be honest with yourself. Is old EPCOT really so great? What would the Average Reasonable Guest prefer, new EPCOT or old?

Again guys, thanks for the measured responses. It's rare to see such nice discussions on here without devolving into rampant fanboyism or bickering.

 

[marni1971]

This thread just gets better...

I have to say I never got hit by the commercialism of the sponsorship at EPCOT Center. I was 15, 18 and 21 when I visited the original park and took it for granted the sponsors were getting free advertising for their financial support... nothing more. Maybe I was naive, maybe since I am English United Technologies, Craft, Bell, Sperry Univac and GM didn`t mean a lot to me at the time. Sure, the Transcenter had a car showroom, abut I was excited to sit in a big new American car, instead of our pokey hire car, and wonder how many years it would be until we in the UK got all these gadgets. It wasn`t so much `in your face` either as say todays Imageworkstore is - the cars were new or forthcoming models and there was plenty of room to look at other exhibits, or just walk out. I do confess though to buying a Test Track minature car in 2001 :lol: !

Now, to reply to your reply to my reply... (not a nit pick - a great chat)

Yes, Orlando and Florida have changed out of all recognition. Most would say for the better, some say for the worse, but there is no denying Walt Disney Productions got the Reedy Creek Charter on the premise of E.P.C.O.T. the city, and then built a theme park instead. Quite a few officials have said had this been known from the start they would have blocked the charter, even if it meant Project Winter (WDW) going to Daytona, or out of state. As I said, WDP`s reasons for the change were valid, but it still seems a little underhand. And I have to say I am glad E.P.C.O.T. as planned didn`t get built. I agree with your comments of `living under a dome`, more to the point I shudder to think what a 1960`s version of an entire city would look like today. Just briefly, when I said `the real epcot is was already everywhere in WDW` I meant the infrastructure any city would be proud of - Utilidors, Fibre Optic communication buried underground, flood control, transportation, AVAC, DACS, fire detection, the EPCOT building code, Central Energy Plant, Tree Farm and waste treatment, landscaping and respect for the environment, catering, wardrobe, central shops... the list goes on and on. These are the `futuristic` systems and utilities any town or city would beg to have if they could start again, and even today they are being used in fragmented form at showpiece developments. And WDW has had them in everyday use for 35 years.

Any attraction can only tell a certain ammount of information in the time given, its the skill of WDI and associated members to try to give as full a picture as possible. The American Adventure is a case in point - 95% good times, 5% some of the bad times. No one wants to experience an attraction that piles negative facts upon them - but at the same time they don`t want to be hidden from the truth; "These Bifocals I`m wearing may be rose tinted..."

As I said in my first post, everyone is different. Horizons touched me on a personal level. To me it was everything a Disney attraction should be, had everything one should have. The backstory is of the CoP family, confirmed by an Imagineer who helped developed the show, hence the pun at the birthday party scene; "don`t you think he looks a little like me... and his dad, and his grandad, and his uncle, and his nephew...) Horizons left me thinking literally for years about future living - everything seemed possible given funding and a `can do` attitude. A utopian future? Yes, but a very real one. Case in point - the maglev trains... the UK government has just announced it is looking at a £20 billion maglev for the UK. Of course, it won`t happen (another story) but if it did, as in hai, that would be a little bit more of Horizons coming true. But again, some people just rode it and thought "cute ride, whats next.." - the beauty of a properly crafted park I guess is everone has a favourite. Or favourites. Same with emotions and charecters, some people get it, some people don`t. Personally, I did. I have a tribute video out on the web of the attraction, and have received email from people who got a tear in their eye watching it.. I hope I don`t sound like I`m showing off, I`m just trying to show the emmotions a ride of this magnitude can generate.

One potential flaw of EPCOT Center was as you said the `sameness` of the rides - I partly agree, in retrospect, but what other media could be used for a park such as this? Omni`s were used, every film format known to man was used, water rides were used, multimedia was created at a time when most people didn`t know the meaning! White knuckle rides were purposley kept out at the start (for better or for worse) - Body Wars was the first attempt to bring in some of the teenage crowd, the majority of whom the EPCOT meaning was lost on. Body Wars was chosen for several reasons, again for another thread, but started to balance out the park, and was itself balanced in the pavilion it was in. Omnimovers were very Disney, yes I did like them, but each was used to a different end, infact each was a different ride system. Its like saying Busch Gardens, for example, is boring since it has too many rollercoasters - but each is a different experience.

So many sub topics to persue, so little space.... :lol:

Cloudboy says a lot of things similar to my way of thinking, I think this sums up the fact a lot of people will agree to disagree on this subject. I enjoyed Epcot. I enjoyed EPCOT Center even more. I enjoyed, learned from and went back to the original UoE, and thought Ellen was tacky, cheap and poorly utilised the pavilion; the rehab could have been so much better (and nearly was). EPCOT Center was as deep an experience as you wished to take it. I just think its present direction is shallower than the orignal.

I do like change. I wouldn`t want, in 2005, to ride 1983`s Horizons, listen to Vic Perrin on Spaceship Earth, or go on a Mission to Mars or watch The Mickey Mouse Revue. Things need to change. WDW needs to; its very existance is a result of repeat visitors and reputation. Its the nature, the depth, direction and cheapness of the changes and new attractions - compared to the originals - I have a problem with.

 

[cloudboy]

My real qualm is that EPCOT in it's original form veered from Disney telling stories to corporations telling stories. Corporations tell stories to improve their image and sell their product. Disney's stories ARE their product so they tell them with the purpose of being as entertaining as possible.

And this makes Disney??? Are they not perhaps the worst offenders in this then – looking at their rides how many are tie-ins with their movies? And are they not then trying to push their own wares? Keep in mind that just because a company sponsored an attraction does not mean that they wrote it. If you really look at the rides they were really done pretty sensitively towards not being a marketing job. In fact, I think that quite frankly it gets too watered down because they seem to have to be a little TOO politically/corporately correct.

Are you not being just as biased? You say that Spaceship Earth, Horizons, World of Motion, and Imagination were the same ride – moving vehicles – just with different sets. I say that Mission:Space, Test Track, and Tower of Terror are the same. A ride vehicle – you get tossed around, apply some g forces, a few special effects to heighten the senses and start the adrenalin flowing, and give it a bit of a story line to give it a little character.

I understand that everybody has their own preferences – what is enjoyable to one person is not to another. And that is why Epcot needs to stay away from doing the same thing – it NEEDS to be different. It NEEDS to not be interesting to those who find the Studios a thrill – it’s about creating different options.

What would the average reasonable guest prefer? Do you mean guests who come now, guests who came before, guests who Disney is trying to get in the future, or guests who we would like to have? The fact is if you don’t offer something the guest wants, they are simply not going to come. And so you start to drive away all but one group of customers. It boils down to the Disney is for Kids argument. I think so many people don’t get what these people are saying because they either can’t or refuse to realize that not everyone enjoys the same things as they do. Many people don’t want the adrenalin; they don’t want the character assault. They don’t want to be dragged along and sit there like a stump while a story unfolds around them. Perhaps they need to feel in control, perhaps they just want to feel smarter than other people. Perhaps they just want to be recognized. But these people had a place in Disney, It was Epcot – a place where they could feel positive about the future. A place where they felt they were part of something more than immediate gratitude, more than just a potential money source. Unfortunately Epcot is becoming just another Magic Kingdom with a different theme.

I think that many people who DON’T understand why people were so attached to the old Epcot are the ones who are missing the point. They see Epcot, not only now, but in the past, as just another collection of rides. And if you are just looking for a ride, then yes, Epcot is boring. Epcot was a much about optimism. It was about feeling comfortable with the changes that were happening in the world. It was about being PART of that new world, not just a passenger, but an active part in the evolution. That is where Epcot is loosing ground – you are a passenger, not a participant. We are not attached only to the past. We are afraid that what we are getting instead of it lacks the depth that the past had.


Oh, and thanks for the debate. I hope this keeps going. I don’t post too often anymore. I found that since I wasn’t a ride junkie and wasn’t into all the characters, I was usually left feeling like somehow Walt Disney World wasn’t for me. I liked the wrong things and I didn’t know how to have fun. This is giving me a chance to point out a lot of ideas, concepts, details even, that I think many off us miss because we concentrate on the big tickets. And to present a different side of both Disney and what the Disney parks are to different people.

 

[ZHoyt]

Lots of things to reply to, but I simply don't have the time. I'm leaving for the World on Thursday and have lots to do beforehand. The one thing I will comment on is this.

Keep in mind that just because a company sponsored an attraction does not mean that they wrote it.

This is not really true. I am not sure of every ride (but I imagine it to be true), but Universe of Energy was co-written by Exxon and Disney. I imagine other companys had similar stakes in their projects. Maybe Marni the historian knows more than I.

But now I have to temporarily abandon the debates to get back to the real world, thanks again for the fun discussions guys. Hopefully it will pick back up later.