Two Spirited Quickees...Imagination closing

[MinnieM123]

I'm afraid it does. Those of us that remember the original with detail are getting long in the tooth now. People like myself first went to it in 83, that was 30 years ago. I was 35 at the time. Do the math that makes me 65. Yea - yea, I know 65 is the new 40. Bull. 65 is 65 and the yearly trips are numbered. I would love for Disney to cater to my tastes, but that would be a formula for failure. There are not enough of us left that still feel the way we did in 1982. They have to appeal to the current young to middle age adults in order to draw them in. It's reality. What we thought was great in the 80's does not influence anymore.

I found your comments quite thought-provoking, and thank you for sharing. If I may, I'd like to add a few here of my own.

Perhaps from a marketing viewpoint of the over-50 demographic, your comments may be accurate; maybe Disney might not consider this group to be the target audience for their future attractions’ budget. And, although I agree that some similarities and preferences may be found in any specific demographic sample, I also believe that people’s interests can vary widely, regardless of their age group.

Moreover, if Disney’s current assumption is (if this is a fact) that the younger demographic is only interested in thrill rides, and not at all in an innovative, fun, and educational park (preferably, more along the lines of Epcot’s original FW & WS concept), then I think they're doing a disservice to this younger group of guests. Why? Because, a "one size fits all" predetermination, doesn't even give these newer visitors a chance to experience a completely different type of attraction for themselves, anymore.

 

[Nubs70]

But they still feel that USDA is a useful thing, where as they feel that NASA is a big hole in space that we keep pouring money into with no obvious return. I not sure that we would have the technology that we have today without NASA's demands for it, but, try convincing anyone of that.

We would absolutely not have many of the technologies we have today without NASA. Just wait till someone makes a snarky reply in reference to Tang.

 

[unkadug]

We would absolutely not have many of the technologies we have today without NASA. Just wait till someone makes a snarky reply in reference to Tang.

NASA did not invent TANG...they only used it.

Not very snarky...sorry

 

[Nubs70]

NASA did not invent TANG...they only used it.

Not very snarky...sorry

Touche

 

[Nubs70]

I found your comments quite thought-provoking, and thank you for sharing. If I may, I'd like to add a few here of my own.

Perhaps from a marketing viewpoint of the over-50 demographic, your comments may be accurate; maybe Disney might not consider this group to be the target audience for their future attractions’ budget. And, although I agree that some similarities and preferences may be found in any specific demographic sample, I also believe that people’s interests can vary widely, regardless of their age group.

Moreover, if Disney’s current assumption is (if this is a fact) that the younger demographic is only interested in thrill rides, and not at all in an innovative, fun, and educational park (preferably, more along the lines of Epcot’s original FW & WS concept), then I think they're doing a disservice to this younger group of guests. Why? Because, a "one size fits all" predetermination, doesn't even give these newer visitors a chance to experience a completely different type of attraction for themselves, anymore.

My take is that FW was never meant for the masses. It was made to inspire the nerdling children of the day. There were exhibits of existing fringe technology juxtaposed against vision of the future for the purpose of inspiring the nerdling in what could be.
How many nerds were directed towards STEM careers, even in a small part, by what we saw at FW in the 80's? FW is not and should not be developed for us in our 40's and older nor should it take into account the needs of the masses. FW needs to be developed to inspire the young nerds. For it is the nerds that actually change the world.

 

[janoimagine]

where as they feel that NASA is a big hole in space that we keep pouring money into with no obvious return.

I think the current administration is the only group that truly feels that way, then again what the hell do they know? They can't even build a working website.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I think the current administration is the only group that truly feels that way, then again what the hell do they know? They can't even build a working website.

Ironically, I doubt we would even have such a thing as a website if it hadn't been for NASA. Plus I would hardly blame just "the administration" for the feeling. The public is very instrumental in that sentiment. Ultra conservatism is also very, very much responsible.

 

[MinnieM123]

My take is that FW was never meant for the masses. It was made to inspire the nerdling children of the day. There were exhibits of existing fringe technology juxtaposed against vision of the future for the purpose of inspiring the nerdling in what could be.
How many nerds were directed towards STEM careers, even in a small part, by what we saw at FW in the 80's? FW is not and should not be developed for us in our 40's and older nor should it take into account the needs of the masses. FW needs to be developed to inspire the young nerds. For it is the nerds that actually change the world.

You raised a good point about what you believe was (and should continue to be) the ultimate goal of FW. I appreciate your perspective on this. Inspiring young people to seek out STEM careers is certainly a worthwhile endeavor, and let's hope this goal continues. Aside of that, even for those guests who were not inclined to enter those fields, Epcot's FW still managed to bring an enjoyable, different type of experience, and extended a welcome to all.

 

[Beholder]

EPCOT was a bold and daring approach from a company that's no longer bold or daring. Today's Disney is "safe and familiar". Business wise, I get it, but a park like this (I'm guessing) would never get greenlit today. EPCOT took a certain vision, a belief in the willingness of the "masses" to appreciate what EPCOT was designed to accomplish. It spoke to Disney's admiration and "faith" in its "guests" and it's own ability to create. I remember EPCOT in its greatness, and would never expect it to remain in the same state forever, but the intent and spirit has been abandoned. It's much easier to follow the same trail rather than blaze a new path. And that, in my opinion, is the complete opposite of EPCOT's original intent.

 

[Radok Block]

Nailed it, @Beholder.

 

[Beholder]

Nailed it, @Beholder.

Thank you, though it isn't what I would have imagined myself believing 10-20 years ago.

 

[willtravel]

Thank you, though it isn't what I would have imagined myself believing 10-20 years ago.

What would you have imagined 10-20 years ago?

 

[Beholder]

What would you have imagined 10-20 years ago?

That things would've progressed or evolved into a logical progression of the ideas conceptualized in EPCOT. I believe EPCOT is/was, ultimately, a physical expression of "possibilities". In conveyed the idea that mankind was limited only by his (her!) willingness to "boldly go" places not yet realized or imagined. Today what I see is pandering in the form of character overlays, pavilion neglect, and "thrills" taking the place of genuine, thought provoking, enlightenment wrapped in the wonderful package of a themepark.

Again, these are just some of my opinions. I still like aspects of EPCOT, but I think it's soul has been sold in exchange for a less "demanding" guest and a less than caring corporate culture.

 

[ford91exploder]

I think the current administration is the only group that truly feels that way, then again what the hell do they know? They can't even build a working website.

Agree - trouble for this admin is that space science is as close to a strict meritocracy as you can get, you don't rise within it by being popular with government and media, You either have the capability or you do not. All the PR flacks in the world cant change that.

This administration is all style over substance and an organization like NASA is an offense to people like that.

 

[Figments Friend]

EPCOT was a bold and daring approach from a company that's no longer bold or daring.
Today's Disney is "safe and familiar". Business wise, I get it, but a park like this (I'm guessing) would never get greenlit today.
EPCOT took a certain vision, a belief in the willingness of the "masses" to appreciate what EPCOT was designed to accomplish.
It spoke to Disney's admiration and "faith" in its "guests" and it's own ability to create.
I remember EPCOT in its greatness, and would never expect it to remain in the same state forever, but the intent and spirit has been abandoned.
It's much easier to follow the same trail rather than blaze a new path.
And that, in my opinion, is the complete opposite of EPCOT's original intent.

Awesome post, and absolutely spot on.
I am quoting it so others can re-read it.

Absolutely spot on. You have summed up the issues beautifully.

 

[Figments Friend]

There is no reason that the original ideals and concepts of EPCOT couldn't be updated to fit the new technological world. In fact, I'd argue that a park like EPCOT, it's the most important thing. Future World should be ever evolving, cutting edge, and thought provoking. I think that this is where the original Epcot had shortcomings, and the redo failed heavily at. IMO, EPCOT should be agile, easily updated/upgraded. It should change ahead of the times. Once something feels outdated or stale, it should be updated. It's mission to educate and entertain should be the backbone, the unifying theme of the entire park, but it's attractions lineup should be constantly in flux.
I know, I live in a dream world, ignorant of budgets and such, but I was once told that if we could dream it, we could do it.

Heck yeah...!
If you can dream it, you CAN do it...but it helps to have a company behind you with the same passion in check.
Sadly, the impression given over the last few years seems quite the opposite.

The currant Company attitude when it comes to the Theme Parks, and EPCOT in particular, is more like :
" If we can slap a popular contemporary IP on it, we can market and sell it"

 

[janoimagine]

This administration is all style over substance and an organization like NASA is an offense to people like that.

To an extent yes, however I forgot that it was the Bush Administration that mothballed the shuttle, and the current administration decided not to invest in any further NASA missions for budget reasons. Both sides of the coin are responsible for our lack of a "motivated" space program.

 

[Beholder]

To an extent yes, however I forgot that it was the Bush Administration that mothballed the shuttle, and the current administration decided not to invest in any further NASA missions for budget reasons. Both sides of the coin are responsible for our lack of a "motivated" space program.

I think the exploration and the required resources for its understanding require a dedicated effort to "sell" the need for those resources in the first place. For that to happen, a leader needs to feel a certain level of passion for that need. JFK was great at this, and of course he had help from the Soviets, but when we stopped going to the moon, we sort of lost interest. Vietnam, watergate, the Cold War (ironically) all helped distract us. I think it's a shame that emphasis isn't placed on the importance of this next step in mans journey in our little solar system. Sort of goes back to the whole EPCOT thing. What once inspired and motivated no longer moves "us". And where did that start? Our lack of interest or our leaderships (TDO) lack of interest?

I don't need to be "sold" on the idea of space exploration, I just don't think anyone is selling.

 

[ford91exploder]

To an extent yes, however I forgot that it was the Bush Administration that mothballed the shuttle, and the current administration decided not to invest in any further NASA missions for budget reasons. Both sides of the coin are responsible for our lack of a "motivated" space program.

Agree absolutely however the Shuttle was mothballed so ARES could be built, Did not agree with decision (or administration) however KSC's current plant cannot support more than one major program at any given time due to constraints of LC39 Current administration decided to scrap ARES even after a successful launch of ARES I in order to send money to a major contributor ie Elon Musk, Much to everyone's surprise Elon WAS ACTUALLY INTERESTED in building a sustainable LEO launch platform and even making it re-usable (ie Grasshopper Program) and he actually built something that works and works well.

Now hopefully we can get the SLS built and escape from LEO for the first time since the mid 70's, and hope that the combination of troglodytes on one hand and the buy votes for me crowd on the other does not do to it what was done to ARES.

 

[ford91exploder]

I think the exploration and the required resources for its understanding require a dedicated effort to "sell" the need for those resources in the first place. For that to happen, a leader needs to feel a certain level of passion for that need. JFK was great at this, and of course he had help from the Soviets, but when we stopped going to the moon, we sort of lost interest. Vietnam, watergate, the Cold War (ironically) all helped distract us. I think it's a shame that emphasis isn't placed on the importance of this next step in mans journey in our little solar system. Sort of goes back to the whole EPCOT thing. What once inspired and motivated no longer moves "us". And where did that start? Our lack of interest or our leaderships (TDO) lack of interest?
I don't need to be "sold" on the idea of space exploration, I just don't think anyone is selling.

Because America is Media driven I think it was more media pushing the meme 'space and science are not cool' it's boring and people took the lead from there.

Because of current Administrations relations with media he could have sold a revitalized space program which could have served to re-unite the nation on a common goal and would have provided jobs and as yet undreamed of tech. You can't live on Mars with fossil fuels and SUV's that project would have had groundbreaking applications here on ther home front, But because of personality flaws and a lack of patience - (I want it My way and i want it now) current administration squandered the opporntunity. NASA's in bunker mode hoping next administration is a bit more forward thinking.