Two Spirited Quickees...Imagination closing

[flynnibus]

You'd think that it would be a win win for all involved. On one hand, the outside company gets a world (all the international guests) wide stage to showcase their latest and greatest in a truly unique setting and Disney gets to build/create new attractions with added benefit of sponsorship.

The problem is the price Disney demands... huge dollars for what largely amounts to static name recognition advertising. It's like sports stadium naming deals...

 

[ford91exploder]

Regarding the idea suggested of getting James Cameron involved in reviving the Seas Pavilion.....

Oh heck, i would be up for that.
Anything is better then that annoying little fish, but i know the vote will be against me with Guest Average.

The Seas Pavilion needs some of that drama back that it once had.
Turning it into a updated exploration lab with a few family friendly distractions would be a nice healthy blend.

There is NO reason you cannot have BOTH, Kidlets love Nemo, Personally I find Dory far more annoying but you could have the Nemo ride as it exists now, And 'Undersea Adventure with James Cameron' as a separate entrance which perhaps could take some of the show elements from the old Seabase Alpha, I'd pay real money to avoid the Nemo show and just go straight to the aquarium and other marine habitats. Make the turn into the 'Undersea Adventure' and option for the Nemo Guests.

This way you have two distinct but related attractions both sharing common infrastructure.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Hell the United States isn't even part of the organizations that formed from the remains of the Worlds Fair.

The Bureau of International Expositions was founded in 1928 and is still going.

HP ( the computer company ) seemed fairly excited and proud of their involvement in 'Mission: Space" when it debuted some years ago.
Now, not so sure...with all the recent negative publicity about the attraction.

HP did a entire marketing campaign for their computers and other tech products around the time of it's opening, and in the months afterwards.

HP acquired the sponsorship of Mission: SPACE when they "merged" with Compaq. It was a nasty affair internally and I think some of this enthusiasm was putting on a good face.

 

[Figments Friend]

There is NO reason you cannot have BOTH, Kidlets love Nemo, Personally I find Dory far more annoying but you could have the Nemo ride as it exists now, And 'Undersea Adventure with James Cameron' as a separate entrance which perhaps could take some of the show elements from the old Seabase Alpha, I'd pay real money to avoid the Nemo show and just go straight to the aquarium and other marine habitats. Make the turn into the 'Undersea Adventure' and option for the Nemo Guests.

This way you have two distinct but related attractions both sharing common infrastructure.

Similar to how The Seas was before 'Nemo-fication' totally took over.
There were a few years when both concepts co-exsited.
The more 'serious' adventure aspect via the remnants of original SeaBase Alpha concepts, and the fun family oriented Nemo displays were present together.

It DID work, unfortunately Disney felt they needed to go full-on NemoLand.

 

[Voxel]

The Bureau of International Expositions was founded in 1928 and is still going.

And if you look the United States is not a member, sadly.

 

[FigmentJedi]

The Seas Pavilion needs some of that drama back that it once had.
Turning it into a updated exploration lab with a few family friendly distractions would be a nice healthy blend.

In other words, just like it used to be. Remember how Sea Base Alpha had that Atlas movie or that cute exploration robot voiced by Frank Welker?

 

[ford91exploder]

In other words, just like it used to be. Remember how Sea Base Alpha had that Atlas movie or that cute exploration robot voiced by Frank Welker?

Yes I do, The Honey BooBoo'ing of the Seas made me very sad it went from a favorite to a place to go to escape heat in extreme moments.

 

[TinkerBelle8878]

lets pool our money and sponsor Imagination with a restaurant upstairs! Imagine Your Food... Make some fun things with different colors... like a hamburger bun that is blue... and fries that are dyed orange... and red mashed potatos... it would play with your senses.

Actually after the Tomorrowland redo in the 90s, Cosmic Rays had blue mayo, yellow ketchup, and I think green mustard for a time. Similar to this idea. I don't know how long it lasted there but it can be done.

 

[Goofyernmost]

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.

I appreciate your comments. Thank you! The one strong argument against it is that in spite of we EPCOT Center loving individuals, still being very active and spending a lot of money at Disney, over that time Epcot was dying anyway. I'm not going to say that they did a lot to improve it, but it did have a reemergence around 2005 and for some of the attractions, (i.e. Test Track and Soarin) are some massive draws. Even Mission: Space is building back up to it's original anticipated pre-scare days. The newness of EPCOT did indeed wear off. Once you've been taught something, there is no real reason to be re-taught.

That, of course, was in Future World. World Showcase has a completely different mission and had solid attractions that either didn't need to be changed or only slightly upgraded for more current times. I often wonder just how many people go to World Showcase and never even realize that they have movies, shows and rides. I'm betting that there are quite a few. To be honest I don't really think that even those of us that long for the "good old days" realized what a gem we had in Future World until it was gone. We didn't generally support it enough and not enough new people liked the concept enough to fill the attractions. In that case, it perhaps really was wise to change things. If only they had changed things for the better...wouldn't life be sweet.

 

[Beholder]

I appreciate your comments. Thank you! The one strong argument against it is that in spite of we EPCOT Center loving individuals, still being very active and spending a lot of money at Disney, over that time Epcot was dying anyway. I'm not going to say that they did a lot to improve it, but it did have a reemergence around 2005 and for some of the attractions, (i.e. Test Track and Soarin) are some massive draws. Even Mission: Space is building back up to it's original anticipated pre-scare days. The newness of EPCOT did indeed wear off. Once you've been taught something, there is no real reason to be re-taught.

That, of course, was in Future World. World Showcase has a completely different mission and had solid attractions that either didn't need to be changed or only slightly upgraded for more current times. I often wonder just how many people go to World Showcase and never even realize that they have movies, shows and rides. I'm betting that there are quite a few. To be honest I don't really think that even those of us that long for the "good old days" realized what a gem we had in Future World until it was gone. We didn't generally support it enough and not enough new people liked the concept enough to fill the attractions. In that case, it perhaps really was wise to change things. If only they had changed things for the better...wouldn't life be sweet.

Evolving from what was into something that still held on to the original "vision" while grasping "new" ideas and concepts would've been great. I think one way to handle the problem of things becoming "dated" is exploring things that are still, wether theoretical or practical/impractical, a LONG ways off in the future. Interstellar travel, faster than light travel, theories surrounding black holes, the possibility of alien life and what that may look like, worm holes, the blend of theory and imagination as it pushes our understanding of technology. Keep the science grounded, but explore the possibilities. And no Iron Man.

As fun as Soarin is, I don't really get inspired after riding. For some reason though, I have a strong desire to buy oranges.

 

[willtravel]

Evolving from what was into something that still held on to the original "vision" while grasping "new" ideas and concepts would've been great. I think one way to handle the problem of things becoming "dated" is exploring things that are still, wether theoretical or practical/impractical, a LONG ways off in the future. Interstellar travel, faster than light travel, theories surrounding black holes, the possibility of alien life and what that may look like, worm holes, the blend of theory and imagination as it pushes our understanding of technology. Keep the science grounded, but explore the possibilities. And no Iron Man.

As fun as Soarin is, I don't really get inspired after riding. For some reason though, I have a strong desire to buy oranges.

I think Soarin is a nice ride. But if there is more than a 30 minute wait, forget it.

 

[alphac2005]

The only reason we had a space program to begin with is because of Russia and the push to go to space in the 60"s. I think if you take a poll today, people would not care. Personally, I think it should be privately funded not federal tax $.

You need a mix. The inventions and advancement in science that have benefited the planet have vastly outweighed the dollars spent on NASA (there was an actual story about this recently and the rate of return has been astronomical) and a good mix between private and public money would work best. Imagine the innovations and science that had a private corporation funded all of the work would be held tightly by that entity only, but having the government funded components, it allows science and technology to not be owned by a tiny cabal only interested in making the most money.

However, companies like SpaceX are proving that you can launch rockets and dispatch satellites along with bringing cargo to the space station at far lower price than NASA could ever do. A combination would be excellent. What's revealed in polls aren't a science many of times and if people knew what the benefits and what they interact with in their daily lives was because of the space program, many would most likely have a different opinion.

 

[willtravel]

You need a mix. The inventions and advancement in science that have benefited the planet have vastly outweighed the dollars spent on NASA (there was an actual story about this recently and the rate of return has been astronomical) and a good mix between private and public money would work best. Imagine the innovations and science that had a private corporation funded all of the work would be held tightly by that entity only, but having the government funded components, it allows science and technology to not be owned by a tiny cabal only interested in making the most money.

However, companies like SpaceX are proving that you can launch rockets and dispatch satellites along with bringing cargo to the space station at far lower price than NASA could ever do. A combination would be excellent. What's revealed in polls aren't a science many of times and if people knew what the benefits and what they interact with in their daily lives was because of the space program, many would most likely have a different opinion.

I agree about the advancements. But I still feel it should be funded by the private sector.

 

[Beholder]

I agree about the advancements. But I still feel it should be funded by the private sector.

Whatever someone's stance on the funding of any space program may be, I tend to believe that the future (20-30 yrs?) will be private ventures. If space travel/exploration/colonization proves itself to be profitable in any way, then the doors will be kicked down. Wether it's tourism, mineral/element retrieval, or perhaps government contracting, I think the for-profit model will succeed.
Of course how quickly they realize any of those goals will have a lot to do with any government regulations and "oversight".

 

[CDavid]

Whatever someone's stance on the funding of any space program may be, I tend to believe that the future (20-30 yrs?) will be private ventures. If space travel/exploration/colonization proves itself to be profitable in any way, then the doors will be kicked down. Wether it's tourism, mineral/element retrieval, or perhaps government contracting, I think the for-profit model will succeed.
Of course how quickly they realize any of those goals will have a lot to do with any government regulations and "oversight".

Private ventures are fine and appropriate for commercial applications, such as cargo delivery to the space station, or other business or contract operations. But it should properly be the role of NASA through public funding for programs of exploration - a manned return to the Moon, then on to Mars, Venus, and other planets. Also NASA would best manage and fund unmanned missions of exploration.

That in no way precludes contracting with private entities to get the spacecraft to orbit or otherwise support operations, but for-profit ventures aren't going to be interested in more difficult, reaching missions such as to Mars given the incredible cost with largely no real return aside from the publicity. Nor are they going to fund an expensive Mars rover and other robotic probes, which do return invaluable information but nothing you can really make money with.

 

[Beholder]

Private ventures are fine and appropriate for commercial applications, such as cargo delivery to the space station, or other business or contract operations. But it should properly be the role of NASA through public funding for programs of exploration - a manned return to the Moon, then on to Mars, Venus, and other planets. Also NASA would best manage and fund unmanned missions of exploration.

That in no way precludes contracting with private entities to get the spacecraft to orbit or otherwise support operations, but for-profit ventures aren't going to be interested in more difficult, reaching missions such as to Mars given the incredible cost with largely no real return aside from the publicity. Nor are they going to fund an expensive Mars rover and other robotic probes, which do return invaluable information but nothing you can really make money with.

Agreed, no company will go just for the sake of going. However, if there's gold in them there hills, then I think we may see some privately invested trips to Mars. Or anywhere else the "gold rush" may lead.

 

[JenniferS]

Actually after the Tomorrowland redo in the 90s, Cosmic Rays had blue mayo, yellow ketchup, and I think green mustard for a time. Similar to this idea. I don't know how long it lasted there but it can be done.

I am one of those people that can't eat off-coloured food.
For a while, Heinz offered green ketchup, and Weston bakeries produced bright orange hot dog buns. My kids were little then, and absolutely loved it.
As much as I love (love, love, love) hot dogs, I just couldn't do it.

(Oooooh, now I'm thinking hot dogs for supper.)

On a slightly different note - I remember when Hostess (Canada) released orange, grape and cherry flavoured potato chips in the mid-70's. They were dis-gus-ting! Chips should taste like chips, not like candy. President's Choice (Loblaws' premium brand) released beer flavoured kettle chips this summer. Frankly, I'd rather eat the fruit flavoured chips.

 

[Bairstow]

off-coloured food.

Off-colored food?

 

[JenniferS]

Off-colored food?

Blue mayo = off-coloured.
Yellow (or green) ketchup = off-coloured.
Green mustard = off-coloured.

See #2:

off-col·or (ôf

k

l

r,

f

-)
adj.
1. Exhibiting bad taste: an off-color joke.
2. Varying from the usual, expected, or required color.
3. Not in good health or spirits.

 

[Bairstow]

Blue mayo = off-coloured.
Yellow (or green) ketchup = off-coloured.
Green mustard = off-coloured.

See #2:

off-col·or (ôf

k

l

r,

f

-)
adj.
1. Exhibiting bad taste: an off-color joke.
2. Varying from the usual, expected, or required color.
3. Not in good health or spirits.

You didn't click my link.