Was Moana placed in the right park?

[WondersOfLife]

Sorry... I promise this is my last poll on this. It's a heated topic for me! LOL!

Just a note: This is not a discussion on Moana in Animal Kingdom (unless it directly relates to a point being made about the location in EPCOT)... I don't need a poll for that one. This is purely for the water playground that is being put in EPCOT. There seems to be more debate on Moana versus Guardians in Epcot. (HERE)

Here are the points I have made in several arguments in another thread...

A). Moana does not make sense with the original EPCOT theming... Some people state that "EPCOT" is dead. If that was the case, we wouldn't still have classic Epcot elements around such as Figment virtually being the park's mascot... Spaceship Earth... Living with the Land... Or Disney hinting over at small EPCOT-y themed elements such as the classic EPCOT map in Connections Cafe, or Awesome Planet, or Space 220...

B). Continuing the argument against "EPCOT failed..." I would argue that there was a point in time where Disney had a solid vision/crew that was capable enough to shift EPCOT's attractions over to modern times while not losing sight of what made EPCOT unique. One could argue that Wonders of Life came in a bit later in Epcot's life, and I think that pavilion was a step in the right direction in making attractions a bit less "dated," at the time. I would also argue that Soarin', Test Track, and even Mission: Space still stuck to the true elements of what made Epcot, EPCOT... With TT and Soarin' still being major headliner attractions in the park today... Thus proving that Disney indeed did have the capabilities of still making EPCOT unique.

C). Which brings me to another point... IPs. This is a touchy subject for most... IPs are not the devil... When used correctly, they can fit in EPCOT just fine. However... Disney has created several attractions that just do not make sense to the overall purpose of EPCOT... Attractions placed in the wrong park... Frozen Ever After should have been a Fantasyland Expansion attraction... Guardians of the Galaxy should have been a Rockin' Roller Coaster replacement (since the "studio" theme is loooooong gone only leaving Muppets and Jones)... Ratatouille barely gets by on my Epcot scale... Of all the shoved-in IPs, Nemo is the only one that makes sense to me. Nemo would make more sense to me if it was themed to the aquarium from Finding Dory.... However... Moana is not EPCOT... Nor is it Animal Kingdom. Putting a character like Moana in a park that doesn't make any sense for her being there makes parks like EPCOT and AK no different than MK... Which brings me to my next point.

D). Magic Kingdom is the fairytale park with all the characters. MGM Studios was supposed to be the park that showed you how movies were made and showcased elaborate stage shows... However, because Disney got lazy, they decided not to update things and let the park rot until they had to start shoehorning attractions into the park which eventually made the Studios lose its identity. There is not much left at Hollywood Studios that would necessarily differentiate it from an experience at Magic Kingdom now. Studios is a lost cause. It's gone... Animal Kingdom was supposed to be more than a zoo and more than a theme park... A deep message about conservation and exploring the environments these different animals lived in. Thank god for Joe Rhode making Avatarland work... But shoot... Zootopia???? C'mon... Why not keep the dinosaurs, 1-up jurassic park, and go with the original land dedicated to those amazing creatures... Which, in turn, would keep AK unique... Don't even get me started on how Moana wouldn't fit in AK... Because I won't even engage. It has NOTHING to do with the point of the park. EPCOT, as I have said previously in another thread, is a "walking zombie." HS has "crawlers" left (Muppets and Indiana Jones)... EPCOT still has EPCOT elements, which I believe could be saved in keeping the park unique and one of a kind... EPCOT does not need to be another Magic Kingdom. Why tease us with mascots like Figment and merchandise resembling classic EPCOT... Why keep bringing back Epcot Forever as an interim show... If EPCOT as itself is NOT profitable?

E). I will agree with everyone that says "Well, Disney has moved on from EPCOT...." Obviously... But there is a mindset right now that I have noticed that is just not right... Especially in these forums... There are SO many people starting posts with "Well, it could be worse!" or "At LEAST it's a good ride" or "At LEAST they kind of TRIED to make it fit Epcot..." Here is the problem with that... If you are a true dedicated Disney Theme Park fan... Why should you settle for less? Why should you just "stop complaining"? Disney has held themselves to a standard that they are apparently kings of storytelling, creativity, and originality... Should we just accept that Disney stopped holding themselves to that status as early as 1998 when Animal Kingdom opened? Why can't we have these debates? It's proven now that Disney can admit to mistakes without telling the public it was a mistake... Last I checked, those $150 million taco barges were supposed to be permanent fixtures...

F). "You have no control over the situation... So why complain?" Because this is a theme park fan forum website... We discuss, debate, and argue about things we are extremely passionate about.... That is what fans do... The "Disney never does anything wrong" and "I just love churros and fun rides!" people can be found on Facebook groups... You're going to find people that like to argue and debate different views and opinions on the state of the parks on here. That's just how it is.

G). "I don't think about stuff in such detail... I just go to have a good time." If that is the case, then you would probably have just as much fun at Six Flags or Carowinds... Disney World is the number one tourist destination in the world for a reason... And that is because it is different. Same argument and case for Universal Studios. If I wanted to just have "Fun," I wouldn't spend a whole years worth of savings to go to Disney... I'd take one grand and drive on up to Pigeon Forge Tennessee.

"Fun is cheap. I can have fun in an inflatable pool in my backyard. I can have fun playing basketball by the garage. I can have fun watching videos of snarky cats. This fun costs very little. An inflatable pool costs 50 bucks or less and can be used many times. A trip to a major entertainment venue like a Broadway play or Theme Park can cost many hundreds of dollars per visit, all in. So…are these places just plain fun? Are they hundreds or thousands of times more fun than shooting silly string at each other on the porch? Probably not. Therefore, fun cannot possibly be the motivating factor in the compulsive, repetitive, over-scale patronage of the theme park industry. The motive is simply not competitive enough based on other options. People must be paying this kind of money and making this kind of effort for a reward that is of higher value, more rare, and of greater impact than fun. That reward is many things, among which is the sensation of transport, of being moved magically into another place or another time. It is the intensity of experience which results in permanent memories. It is the rare sensation of cohesiveness, harmony, and thematic organization which allows the human brain to relax and be absorbed. I could go on. But all of these properties reside in the obsessive execution of coordinated detail, resulting in places with a strange otherworldly attraction. And that is not cheap. In fact, theme parks are repositories of human time, effort, and, yes, money…which guests sense through the level of detail, organization, and intensity. Theme parks are a form of communication between designers and audiences… They are relationships. People like worthy, meaningful, invested relationships… Not cheap ones."
- Joe Rohde

H). Why doesn't Moana work for me in this park? Because I know there was hardly any thought or effort put into this project... At least by the ones who said "Fit Moana into EPCOT and make it make sense." I'm sure the actual creative ones were scrambling around everywhere to figure out how exactly they needed to work Moana into EPCOT... Nothing about Moana screams EPCOT... At all... If I were to choose ANY IPs to be shoehorned into this park... It would be things like Inside Out... Big Hero 6... Heck, even Honey I Shrunk the Audience was a better fit for EPCOT. They just have to be done RIGHT for Epcot.... And I don't think this has been done right. Moana is not Epcot to me.

I). "It doesn't fit old EPCOT, but it fits current day EPCOT" .... If you could explain to me, what is current day EPCOT? Current day Hollywood Studios, to me, is an Islands of Adventure-esque park now, where you completely diverge yourself into the lands these films are based on... At least, that is the direction it is going in. If I were to describe modern day EPCOT, I would simply describe it as "A mixture of lost identity and a jumbled up mess of unrelated attractions and themes." To which, I would still answer "No" on my poll, because to me, that is not "EPCOT." Call it something else at that point.

J). I haven't had a rant like this in a long, long, while... But hopefully my standpoint makes sense, now that I have grouped literally every point I have made into one post... I would also hope to open the eyes of those that think EPCOT was a failure, when in fact... The idea of EPCOT was not a failure... Disney just failed EPCOT...



.......................I realize that this may make you not want to engage in conversation on this thread, based on how much I have typed. I'll only reply to those who directly reply to me, so that I don't scare off any friendly conversations on a topic I am personally heated about. But if you'd like to get heated with me, lets go! (Heated... In a healthy debate kind of way...)

 

[erasure fan1]

I say, stopped caring. At this point Disney is going to do whatever they want. They have very little thematic integrity left. So Moana in Epcot? Whatever. They are going to destroy whatever is left of original Epcot. It's just a matter of time.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

I just think that both should’ve been in the same park…it makes NO sense that Buzz Lightyear is in Tomorrowland while Toy Story Land is in HWD…put something else in the MK…Moana hasn’t earned the right to be in two parks…YET.

 

[J4546]

I think a walkthrough exhibit about the journey of water fits Epcot very well. It seems like the IP inclusion is what people have a problem with

 

[WondersOfLife]

I will say I think it's less about IP and more about what was cut while this was still greenlit. Other attractions should have been higher up on the list for sure.

IP is a valid case as well. And so is "why does this need to exist at all?" As an argument...

 

[Br0ckford]

Hard to vote on this one until I experience it. If it's an educational journey of H2O, it's not necessarily an issue for me. If it ends up being a glorified meet and greet, them could be an issue. I don't necessarily have an issue with IP in a park if it fits the theme of the park.

 

[SaucyBoy]

I like the concept of the life cycle of water. I don't quite see the connection to Moana, though, so it'll down to execution. Ultimately, I voted "stopped caring" because Disney is going to do what it wants (sensible or not) and I'm still going to visit every year.

 

[Rush]

It certainly went to the park in most need for greenery.

 

[Worldlover71]

Seems like it will be a lovely small-scale attraction. I would have no objection to it in Adventureland in the MK or at HS or AK if blended in well. Where it is in Epcot though sticks out like a sore thumb. It does not fit the architecture or design of the area. Saying that it forms a nature area with Land and Sea is a huge stretch.

 

[BlakeW39]

Ehh I mean look. Thematically the attraction fits. However the IP tacked onto it is extremely contrived and therefore cheapens the attraction a great deal. The IP definitely feels forced and unnatural in an attraction that could have done without. So, overall I would say the placement of the attraction isn't terrible but it would have been more natural if they had let the attraction stand on its own merits rather than with all the excess branding and references to what essentially amounts to an entirely unrelated film.

 

[FettFan]

I still think it’s tragically hilarious (or hilariously tragic?) that Epcot decided to give Moana a parking lot.

It’s the Moan Alot.

 

[Riviera Rita]

It makes zero sense having it in the middle of what was once Futureland.

 

[networkpro]

It makes zero sense to complain about IP for a company that makes its money from IP.

 

[Br0ckford]

It makes zero sense to complain about IP for a company that makes its money from IP.

What is this board for, oh yeah,WDW Parks General Discussion
the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
a conversation or debate about a certain topic.

 

[J4546]

I think it would be rad if they used the expansion plot between land and seas and made a multiple attraction land with a few moana references, say a land with a camp discovery like mountain climbing course with a massive waterfall coming off of it, river rapids ride going around and through the mountain, and the spinner from the blue sky moana animal kingdom concept

 

[Disstevefan1]

It makes zero sense to complain about IP for a company that makes its money from IP.

That’s true. Todays EPCOT is all about making money.

 

[BlakeW39]

It makes zero sense to complain about IP for a company that makes its money from IP.

Lol, all entertainment companies make their money off of intellectual properties. So you're essentially saying it makes zero sense for anyone to complain about intellectual properties at all. Which of course reflects either a gross misunderstanding of what people mean by 'intellectual property' or a strong bias against people who argue this particular point.

I just figured it went without saying that the issue here ISN'T IP itself... no duh, any idea Disney creates it will own, and will therefore be its intellectual property.

The real issues people are complaing about are two-fold— but both have to do not with the concept of companies (in this case, Disney) owning and then using intellectual properties, but rather with how companies (Disney) use their intellectual properties.

1. Disney refuses to create new intellectual properties. This narrows the scope of what Disney creatives are allowed to do and prevents them from creating the best possible attractions in the parks they are designed for...essentially, if you picture the parks as a movie with a running plot (which may help as an analogy, because film is a more commonly understood creative medium), one plot beat leads to another. One land, one attraction leads to another land, another attraction to create a cohesively designed park. Forcing unrelated IPs into a theme park with a core vision is like forcing references and nostalgia **** into a movie. It breaks up the plot and distracts from its themes, it makes it inconsistent and cheapens the artistry of the film. Same goes for forced IPs in the parks.

2. Disney has an obsession with pop-culture film IPs that don't fit in the parks very well. Basically, these films have their own sets of themes, storytelling methods, and artistic directions... ones that are different from the parks. They were never designed with, for example, EPCOT in mind and they therefore do not fit the artistic direction of that park.

These are completely valid criticisms that your comment is designed to basically just ignore and dismiss. Sure you may disagree with the criticisms of film IPs in the Disney parks. But that doesn't mean you can dismiss the mere premise of criticizing the ways a company handles IP at all.

 

[BlakeW39]

What is this board for, oh yeah,WDW Parks General Discussion
the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
a conversation or debate about a certain topic.

Thank you. "Shut up"— basically the extent of what op said about IP critics.

 

[networkpro]

What is this board for, oh yeah,WDW Parks General Discussion
the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
a conversation or debate about a certain topic.

So exactly what do you as a customer do? You have options: don't go to where it's occurring or spend money for any of that company's goods or services, write correspondence to the company voicing your opinions, wax poetically about how your experience is less than it use to be to anyone or any forum you can, or you accept it and move on.

 

[Br0ckford]

So exactly what do you as a customer do? You have options: don't go to where it's occurring or spend money for any of that company's goods or services, write correspondence to the company voicing your opinions, wax poetically about how your experience is less than it use to be to anyone or any forum you can, or you accept it and move on.

I think everyone who still goes had decided to accept it and move on. Does that mean we can't have a discussion about it on a discussion board? You can always choose to not take part in the discussion by scrolling past if you don't like it or think it's pointless.