The "Technology Moves Too Fast" Argument

[Variable]

Why, thank you for this thread. It had completely escaped my attention until you mentioned it elsewhere.

I too think EPCOT is nowhere near as outdated as critics claim it was / is. A mere visit to EPCOT Center's proud remnants would prove otherwise: the ride by monorail, walking towards the mighty SSE, riding SSE and LwtL, walking WS lagoon. Doing that while turning a blind eye to toon fish and princesses makes for an experience just as powerful and engrossing as ever.

The irony is that old EPCOT feels less dated than new Epcot.

Future World could indeed easily have been kept current. It was never as reliant on showcasing contemporary technology, never mind future tech, as much as it is sometimes thought it was. It was designed to be more timeless, and easily updatable to boot.

And even where it is outdated a bit, why should that matter? Main Street has long since stopped being about living nostalgia as it was to elder guests in 1955. Western and Exotic Adventure movies ceased to be movie genres half a century ago. Yet their lands function. EPCOT as an essentially 1980's World's Fair would be brilliant. Who would destruct that 80's World's Fair remnant of one century earlier again, the Eiffel Tower? Surely its technology has lost its wow factor now that skyscraping steel structures are erected in every provincial town?

For me, "outdated" means what you said about Future World: could have easily been kept current and showcasing possible futures.

The hydroponics that used to be so leading edge in the Land are now common, but there are even more remarkable technologies being used and experimented that could have highlighted there now.

The original core intent of Epcot is not outdated, just not being executed on very well.
But when you use Main Street et al as an example you're conflating two different originally stated purposes for being. Epcot was not stated to be about the past, eras gone by, it was positioned as forward thinking. The others were built for the opposite direction.

Maybe what you perceive as old Epcot being less dated than new Epcot might be because there is no soul, or mission, or higher whatever involved with the newer version. Its not a question of being outdated, its more like a lack of vision, there's no forward. The old Epcot, even if the tech or ideas have been superseded by reality, still PRESENTS a vision. And its fun to see what those in the past thought of the future - its one of the appeals of the CoP.

This really is a good fodder for a sit 'round the campfire all night talking sort of discussion.

 

[Cliff Racer]

I agree with Lilly that 80s Epcot seems more futuristic and less dated but I put that more on the iconic architecture that the park presented guests with way back when. It wasn't just hidden in the background like now, they tried to show it off with things like the pavilion logos. There were a few misses, Universe of Energy was always going to be tough because sight-lines and I think one of the other pavilions might have had longterm structural issues (WoM?) but having the brilliant Wonders of Life pavilion sitting unused is a crying shame. The Seas is a real baffler too, such a huge aquarium and you can see hardly any of it. All thats really left is Spaceship Earth and the Land. It obviously wasn't really an experimental prototype city of tomorrow but I thought that the physicality of the place added a real force to the message that the current, more kid-friendly, version lacks. I feel like if it had all been built today the geodesic dome would have been two stories high and the ride would be a CGI simulator. No way would anyone build something as big and audacious as SSE-to say nothing of the other pavilions being placed alongside it.

 

[RobidaFlats]

that the current, more kid-friendly

I might be crazy, but I feel that Epcot is currently less kid-friendly than it was. World of Motion and Horizons were both replaced by rides with height requirements. Even Soarin' has a height requirement. Sure, 40 inches isn't that bad, but it means that you can't ride something as a family if the 3 (or even 4 sometimes) year old doesn't quite hit the stick.

I don't think that the trend away from inspirational/educational is pro-kid either. Kid's thrive on curiosity and the explosion (and success) of children's museums in America speaks to that.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

I might be crazy, but I feel that Epcot is currently less kid-friendly than it was. World of Motion and Horizons were both replaced by rides with height requirements. Even Soarin' has a height requirement. Sure, 40 inches isn't that bad, but it means that you can't ride something as a family if the 3 (or even 4 sometimes) year old doesn't quite hit the stick.

I don't think that the trend away from inspirational/educational is pro-kid either. Kid's thrive on curiosity and the explosion (and success) of children's museums in America speaks to that.

Yes to both statements!

The amount of money Disney could've made if it had developed EPCOT into a full brand! There is no limit to what parents will pay for anybody who can fill the gap between insitutionalised learning and play.

And yes, current Epcot is less inclusive. OLD EPCOT was great for everybody, of all ages and physical shape. A superhero thrill ride will have very limited demographic and physical appeal.