Upcoming/Rumored Projects

[J03Y]

Since when can "attractions" not be "experiences"?

And when did "attractions" get married to "thrills"?

1) experience in the way that it's about cultures and a look into the future. Epcot's main draw in is the countries, not Future World. less rides and more countries is what it needs. more cultural experiences.
2) when did thrills get married to roller coasters?

 

[bubbles1812]

Epcot's not supposed to have MORE attractions. it shouldn't, it's not that kind of park. it's about experiences, not thrills

Yeah, sorry, I'd have to agree with what millionaire said... how do you expect to get visitors without attractions? An attraction doesn't always mean thrill rides. It could be a new pavilion. And Future World...well, it is a lot about attractions in the conventional sense of the word. And it needs more of them. There is tons of empty or underutilized space. It's a mess and needs some fixin'.

 

[bubbles1812]

1) experience in the way that it's about cultures and a look into the future. Epcot's main draw in is the countries, not Future World. less rides and more countries is what it needs. more cultural experiences.
2) when did thrills get married to roller coasters?

Yes, Epcot's main draw is the countries but even you just admitted it's about a look into the future...and that part of the park is a mess. And they aren't ever going to add any countries there. Wasn't what it was designed for. Also, no one said thrills equaled coasters? Maelstrom could be called a thrill and it's not a coaster...

 

[vinnya1726]

Yes, I agree! I love Norway's Maelstrom ride, and I like the Three Caballero ride in San Angel Inn. More countries should have their own attractions. I've long argued for a Yellow Submarine ride in Great Britian, for instance.

Yellow Submarine ride in Great Britain...that is brilliant. Germany, Italy, and China could all use attractions. Canada also... eliminate the movies that nobody goes to and put in some attractions. A Gondola type vehicle to take people around a dark ride focused around Italy would be awesome...maybe some sort of Eiffel tower Drop...go to the top and go up and down like tower of terror. The Rhine River Cruise ride that has been written about in other places would be great in Germany...and I am sure we can think of thousands of things for China and Japan. Canada may be a little more difficult...but maybe an attraction focused on Goofy exploring Canada.

 

[tinkerbell1620]

I've long argued for a Yellow Submarine ride in Great Britian, for instance.

i think that may be the greatest idea ive ever heard

 

[yoyoflamingo]

Yes, I agree! I love Norway's Maelstrom ride, and I like the Three Caballero ride in San Angel Inn. More countries should have their own attractions. I've long argued for a Yellow Submarine ride in Great Britian, for instance.

I still think Mr. Toad could have moved into the UK.

 

[Beholder]

Not sure it would work in Great Britain, but I've always loved Arthur Conan Doyles Sherlock Holmes and would really enjoy an attraction around him. Not the current Robert Downey Jr, but the classic literary forms and if movies/tv are represented, I'd kill to see an AA of Basil Rathbone and the ultimate Holmes, Jeremy Brett.

But I'm just dreaming...

 

[Brava Centauri]

Nope.
Keep the dragon, but let the dated bearded guy go.

I think they could totally re-invent Dreamfinder into a more modern-friendly character. The design of Dreamfinder was very 80's ... but that's not to say we can't have a "wizard" type character in a new version. Spruce up Dreamfinder--trim his beard, maybe take off a few pounds, update his wardrobe. You have to admit, there's a reason why Figment still has a "companion" of sorts ... he works well with a companion, however flawed the current version is. I'd say make Figment's companion a child, but that'd be too "Barney the dinosaur".

Using some sort of state-of-the-art ride system and special effects would, IMHO, draw in the crowds if the story is gripping enough. Open up the original Imageworks and turn it back into a real, legit attraction with modern play stations they could update over the years. Then either replace Eo or use the theatre space to expand the ride attraction.

So much they could do, if only they'd spend the money. Hey, they've already made a successful franchise out of a theme park ride ... why not do a quality movie on perhaps the origin of Dreamfinder and Figment. Sort of like how they're doing Oz the Great and Powerful. Then they can do their favorite thing: tying in an attraction to a franchise.

 

[TinkerBelle8878]

I think they could totally re-invent Dreamfinder into a more modern-friendly character. The design of Dreamfinder was very 80's ... but that's not to say we can't have a "wizard" type character in a new version. Spruce up Dreamfinder--trim his beard, maybe take off a few pounds, update his wardrobe. You have to admit, there's a reason why Figment still has a "companion" of sorts ... he works well with a companion, however flawed the current version is. I'd say make Figment's companion a child, but that'd be too "Barney the dinosaur".

Using some sort of state-of-the-art ride system and special effects would, IMHO, draw in the crowds if the story is gripping enough. Open up the original Imageworks and turn it back into a real, legit attraction with modern play stations they could update over the years. Then either replace Eo or use the theatre space to expand the ride attraction.

So much they could do, if only they'd spend the money. Hey, they've already made a successful franchise out of a theme park ride ... why not do a quality movie on perhaps the origin of Dreamfinder and Figment. Sort of like how they're doing Oz the Great and Powerful. Then they can do their favorite thing: tying in an attraction to a franchise.

I agree with this so much. I'll even go as far to say that I think Figment would make a very cute movie or even a tv cartoon on one of the Disney Channels. He's already got his own theme song. Dreamfinder can be his creator and owner who pops in to check on him after turning him loose. Nothing too heavy handed but still a presence and origin establishing a story. As for updating Dreamfinder himself, as long as they don't turn him into a Willy Wonka clone (the wardrobe is awfully similar ), it could work.

 

[Kuhio]

I think they could totally re-invent Dreamfinder into a more modern-friendly character. The design of Dreamfinder was very 80's ... but that's not to say we can't have a "wizard" type character in a new version. Spruce up Dreamfinder--trim his beard, maybe take off a few pounds, update his wardrobe.

I agree with pretty much your entire post except for this bit about Dreamfinder. There's nothing inherently '80s about his design; his attire -- top hat, tailcoat, and spats -- was antiquated (and deliberately so) well before the '80s, which is why he comes off as a figure of fantasy as opposed to a more realistic depiction of a character of the time period. And there's not anything particularly '80s about having a bushy beard and a rounder physique; it's a body type that has generally exemplified jolly, paternal characters for far longer than Disney has been around (think Santa Claus, for example).

I think re-casting Dreamfinder as a guy with (for example) a neatly trimmed goatee, a toned physique, and 21st century clothing (whatever that might be) would date him far more than keeping him as he appeared in the original incarnation of the attraction. Generally, attempts to "update" characters in this fashion only end up dating them instead. (Think of all the efforts to make Mickey and the gang "cooler" and "more modern" in the '80s and '90s by giving them club clothes, etc. -- it only served to make them seem like products of a very specific era, in contrast to their (technically) older looks, which by then had become truly timeless.)

I'd love to see Dreamfinder return in some sort of state-of-the-art re-imagining of Journey into Imagination, but I'd rather not see him back at all than have him come back as a younger, fresher, hipper version of his original self.

 

[WEDway1975]

Why doesn't TDO think of stuff like this?

Because they're TDO! lol

 

[TropicalFig8]

Nope.
Keep the dragon, but let the dated bearded guy go.

And that's already happened so we'll leave it at that. I hear Epcot fans knocking on my door.
Anyway,But what I don't understand is getting rid of Figment in the first place. Yes,I know about the Kodak thing,blah blah blah but getting rid of him is like getting rid of Mickey Mouse at the Disney Parks. Just saying.

 

[marni1971]

Epcot's not supposed to have MORE attractions. it shouldn't, it's not that kind of park. it's about experiences, not thrills

Okay.

 

[Beholder]

I think one of the issues with EPCOT is the deviation from the original "mission statement" or intent of the park as originally conceived. The example I think of most often is Mission Space. In of itself, it's not a bad thing, but the idea of space is so massive, so "infinite", that being limited to a thrill based simulator is selling itself short. Space, in the setting and context of EPCOT should present a much larger picture. The various planets, solar systems, nebula, space-time theories, man/unmanned space flight, not to mention possible alien life, faster than light travel (theoretical?), and perhaps a look back into what we thought space was like (H.G. Wells, early movies, etc.) and maybe some NASA exhibits. Nothing wrong with the simulator, but to me, it's part of a whole that isn't complete.

The same things can be said I guess of Journey, Living Seas (current version) and maybe TT. I understand the experiences vs thrill thing, but I think both can and should exist together to convey a certain "point" or narrative, especially in a place like EPCOT.

Times have changed, people like their information processed/received in different
ways, I get that. So, let's join a higher energy experience with the higher learning of an earlier EPCOT.

 

[Kuhio]

I'd love to see Dreamfinder return in some sort of state-of-the-art re-imagining of Journey into Imagination, but I'd rather not see him back at all than have him come back as a younger, fresher, hipper version of his original self.

Of course, if Disney were absolutely dead-set on bringing back Dreamfinder as a younger version of himself, they could justify the change by explaining that it's not an external redesign of the character by the Disney company, but rather an internal change that's consistent with Dreamfinder's secret backstory.

Because... Dreamfinder is actually a Time Lord. He hasn't been "redesigned"; he simply regenerated himself into a younger body. (And the Dream Machine is a TARDIS... Figment was created to replace those unreliable human companions...) Dreamfinder could even break precedent by regenerating as a new female version -- a sassy, flirty redhead sure to elicit an endless stream of questions from Figment!

OK, I'll stop. After all, borrowing ideas from another fictional universe isn't exactly the highest use of imagination...

 

[Beholder]

Of course, if Disney were absolutely dead-set on bringing back Dreamfinder as a younger version of himself, they could justify the change by explaining that it's not an external redesign of the character by the Disney company, but rather an internal change that's
consistent with Dreamfinder's secret backstory.


Because... Dreamfinder is actually a Time Lord.
He hasn't been "redesigned"; he simply
regenerated himself into a younger body. (And
the Dream Machine is a TARDIS... Figment was
created to replace those unreliable human
companions...) Dreamfinder could even break
precedent by regenerating as a new female
version -- a sassy, flirty redhead sure to elicit an
endless stream of questions from Figment!


OK, I'll stop. After all, borrowing ideas from
another fictional universe isn't exactly the
highest use of imagination...

WHO knows? It could work. Perhaps re-imagine the pavilion as a look at how our imaginations have evolved over TIME to reflect our changing beliefs, knowledge, and how we view ourselves.

And borrowing from one thing to help another is ok, in small doses. Everything pretty much is a variation of something else. It's all in the delivery.

 

[Kuhio]

I think one of the issues with EPCOT is the deviation from the original "mission statement" or intent of the park as originally conceived. . . .

The same things can be said I guess of Journey, Living Seas (current version) and maybe TT. I understand the experiences vs thrill thing, but I think both can and should exist together to convey a certain "point" or narrative, especially in a place like EPCOT.

Times have changed, people like their information processed/received in different
ways, I get that. So, let's join a higher energy experience with the higher learning of an earlier EPCOT.

Completely agree.

I think one of the problems with the original EPCOT Center -- and, in particular, Future World -- was the fact that all of the attractions had a very similar pace. While there were differences in tone -- World of Motion was a light-hearted attraction, whereas Spaceship Earth was serious -- a visitor could easily come away with a feeling of sameness... an overarching sense that EPCOT Center was only about slow-moving, overly didactic experiences.

So change was necessary in order to make the park continue to be relevant and attractive to guests. And I appreciate the injection of thrills into the park, but adding higher-energy experiences need not come at the expense of one of Epcot's underlying, original purposes.

As I've posted in other threads before, you can make an attraction more thrilling without completely obliterating its general focus. For example, the appeal of Test Track lies largely in things that could have been added to the original World of Motion without utterly changing the nature of the attraction's narrative. The TT ride system and vehicles could have been integrated into the WoM story -- with obvious changes to pace and scenes, of course. But most of the things that make TT appealing -- the changes in speed, the hills, etc. -- could all be made part of the WoM's tongue-in-cheek history of transportation. The exposures to heat, cold, and "corrosive" acid could have become part of the story of Americans' westward journey, and the extremes of climate that wagon trains endured; the "rough" road sections, swerving, and narrow accident avoidance could have become part of a segment on the expansion of the interstate highway system, and the growing pains the U.S. (and other countries) went through in transitioning into a car-focused society. Lastly, the high-speed outside loop could have been added as part of a way to "slingshot" guests into one last show scene depicting a potential future of transportation.

Put another way, Test Track's appeal is not primarily due to its theme of automobile safety testing. If anything, that theme is way too specific -- a point you make well with regard to Mission Space. I'd really rather not have an entire Future World with attractions dedicated to very narrow topics within the general ideas of "transportation," "space exploration," "communication," etc. -- not when the attractions can, if designed well, address much broader scopes (the big ideas that inspire people to explore and create) while also providing thrills: the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[baymenxpac]

Completely agree.

I think one of the problems with the original EPCOT Center -- and, in particular, Future World -- was the fact that all of the attractions had a very similar pace. While there were differences in tone -- World of Motion was a light-hearted attraction, whereas Spaceship Earth was serious -- a visitor could easily come away with a feeling of sameness... an overarching sense that EPCOT Center was only about slow-moving, overly didactic experiences.

So change was necessary in order to make the park continue to be relevant and attractive to guests. And I appreciate the injection of thrills into the park, but adding higher-energy experiences need not come at the expense of one of Epcot's underlying, original purposes.

As I've posted in other threads before, you can make an attraction more thrilling without completely obliterating its general focus. For example, the appeal of Test Track lies largely in things that could have been added to the original World of Motion without utterly changing the nature of the attraction's narrative. The TT ride system and vehicles could have been integrated into the WoM story -- with obvious changes to pace and scenes, of course. But most of the things that make TT appealing -- the changes in speed, the hills, etc. -- could all be made part of the WoM's tongue-in-cheek history of transportation. The exposures to heat, cold, and "corrosive" acid could have become part of the story of Americans' westward journey, and the extremes of climate that wagon trains endured; the "rough" road sections, swerving, and narrow accident avoidance could have become part of a segment on the expansion of the interstate highway system, and the growing pains the U.S. (and other countries) went through in transitioning into a car-focused society. Lastly, the high-speed outside loop could have been added as part of a way to "slingshot" guests into one last show scene depicting a potential future of transportation.

Put another way, Test Track's appeal is not primarily due to its theme of automobile safety testing. If anything, that theme is way too specific -- a point you make well with regard to Mission Space. I'd really rather not have an entire Future World with attractions dedicated to very narrow topics within the general ideas of "transportation," "space exploration," "communication," etc. -- not when the attractions can, if designed well, address much broader scopes (the big ideas that inspire people to explore and create) while also providing thrills: the two are not mutually exclusive.

great. freakin'. post.

seriously, as well articulated as it could be. i've never really thought about how the scope of the attractions went from an overarching, grander topic to narrowly-focused sub-sects of the issue. but it's so true. and at first thought, you'd think that would make the attractions better, but it hasn't.

well done.

 

[Beholder]

I'll admit, I tend to gravitate towards the "slower paced" attractions if it means a complete and thorough narrative told with great theme, subject appropriate tone, and abundant detail.

I like a good "thrill" ride (thrill is also a bit subjective), but give me detail. Splash Mnt. does a good job of combining the two concepts. I'd just like to see EPCOT fully realized as a truly unique park. As it is, there's really nothing else like it (one of the reasons I love it) but expanding on the founding principles instead of taking the obvious route of, "dumbing" down things to please the "crowd", is where it needs to go.

And by "crowd", I mean how I think TDO views the average guest, "give them thrills, it's all they care about". I think the average guest would respond well to great attractions, in any scenario.

 

[baymenxpac]

I'll admit, I tend to gravitate towards the "slower paced" attractions if it means a complete and thorough narrative told with great theme, subject appropriate tone, and abundant detail.

I like a good "thrill" ride (thrill is also a bit subjective), but give me detail. Splash Mnt. does a good job of combining the two concepts. I'd just like to see EPCOT fully realized as a truly unique park. As it is, there's really nothing else like it (one of the reasons I love it) but expanding on the founding principles instead of taking the obvious route of, "dumbing" down things to please the "crowd", is where it needs to go.

And by "crowd", I mean how I think TDO views the average guest, "give them thrills, it's all they care about". I think the average guest would respond well to great attractions, in any scenario.

agreed. there's such value in a slow build to the thrill. i think new rides that get into it right out of the gate are indicative of placation to a society that is no longer willing to wait for anything. the first time i went on splash mountain, i expected every hill to be "the one." and that anticipation not only enhanced the thrill when it finally came, but gave more nuance to each drop before that as well.

the thing disney has always done well is in story telling, and as part of that narrative, used natural emotions to enhance the experience. the haunted mansion is a good example of this (pre-interactive queue). there's nothing that is creepy in the first...say 50 feet or so. but the minute you walk up to the queue there's...well...an air of foreboding. it's a slow build. to put it crudely, the creepiness is implied. it doesn't need to smack you over the head.