Keep 'Inside Out' far, far away from the Imagination pavilion. The further, the better.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
What do you think of the EPCOT Central Spine redesign?
- Thread starter EpcotMark
- Start date
Kman101
Well-Known Member
And that would be wonderful. But that's not what they're doing, I'm accepting it for what it is and acting accordingly.
I know that's what you want, it's what I'd prefer, but again, that's not what's happening right now.
I made quite a lengthy post, but I respect your stance. You skipped over the point of "what if they made Inside Out and Big Hero 6 SPECIFICALLY for Epcot without a movie tie-in". So why is it any different because they have a movie? I don't see the need to protest against these two when we have a mess coming our way in Guardians. THAT is what's putting the final nail in Epcot, not Rat or Coco or Frozen or Poppins or Inside Out or Nemo or Big Hero 6. They fit Epcot as it is now so why not?
Again, if Figment got a movie, he should move out of Epcot, right? It's all the same to me. It's just how they use them. But I do respect how you feel. Not saying anyone's wrong to feel that way, but that's not the reality we're in.
The emotional range of your post is more jarring than a ride on Tomorrowland Speedway. You feel certain IP's are wrong but others are just fine. You never (or didnt) develop nostalgia for Epcot Center, but you love what it was. You feel GoTG is a bad fit and belongs in a fantasy oriented park (such as MK or HS) but other movies that are far more fictitious (that have ANIMATED humans, not real ones) are perfectly acceptable for Epcot. And you create somewhat of a straw man by citing how people would not mind if a movie was created based off existing (or extinct) attractions that are (or at one time were) already in the park.... so in turn people should not mind if they create or overlay current attractions with existing IP's.
Rooting your logic in fallacy does not strengthen your argument and is just a form of resistance that turns into a passive aggressive attitude, which is displayed when you trot out the old "we should just accept Epcot for it is becoming" and anybody who disagrees, you label as "stubborn". You remove a persons ability to choose how they feel and IMPOSE how they should feel which is to "just accept it".
jakeman
Well-Known Member
I have no dog in this race as I was neither caught up with the old Epcot or overwhelmingly cheering for its current direction now, but I think the point being made is that the concept of IPs are being dismissed because they did not originate within the confines of Epcot regardless of their applicability.
For example, Inside Out is being dismissed by some as a poor fit for the Imagination Pavilion when the movie had an entire (albeit depressing) subplot solely about imagination.
It's not a straw man so much as it is almost a double standard. Originality is fine, as long as it is generated within the borders of Epcot. It just seems like an arbitrary rule set to some.
You pose a question, followed by your opinion on it, then appeal to emotion by stating "you respect how they feel" and then double down with "your not wrong to feel that way" and then end it by telling them they are wrong ("thats not the realty we live in"). Textbook
Last edited:
FerretAfros
Well-Known Member
The most interesting part of all this to me is Area 2, off on the east side. We've known about the potential for a hotel project near the entrance and bus loop, but this seems to confirm the previous hints that multiple hotels are being considered for Epcot's front sideAs @NoChesterHester mentioned on the last page, here's all of the stormwater/various earth movement docs: http://blogmickey.com/2018/02/location-rumored-epcot-hotel-revealed-permits/
And here's the "Epcot World Center" name on one of them:
Anything to possibly comment on @marni1971 (possible name change or hotel rumors?).
With two canals getting filled and Woodpecker Ln being relocated, it's clear that they intend to do something back there. Although those pieces of infrastructure date to Epcot's original construction, they're in perfectly serviceable condition; Woodpecker Ln is currently being used for the primary construction access to the GOTG/stormwater project. They wouldn't alter these features unless they had definitive plans for that area
That said, it's really not a great site for a hotel. The two primary views will be toward the massive guest parking lot or toward backstage and cast parking, neither of which are ideal for a high-price hotel. It does have the advantage of having easy access from Overpass Rd and Backstage Ln, avoiding the Epcot toll plaza entirely, but that area is not especially attractive. It's a relatively small site for a hotel, and would likely require structured parking and/or a tower building, rather than Disney's typical low/mid-rise format
It may not be as glamorous as the proposed work near the bus loop, but it seems like these changes will be more extensive. I'm really curious to see how it turns out
People can complain and argue against IP use in parks, particularly Epcot, but, you may as well accept that this is what is happening. You can harken back to the days of "originality" but have you seen movies in Hollywood lately? The days of the attraction creating the IP and then movies is pretty much a distant memory. Once you accept that they are going to leverage their ability to use movie IPs in the parks, and that is just smart business, then you will be able to breathe easier. Nostalgia is great. We all get it. Original Epcot can never be duplicated and in my opinion, they shouldnt try to. The use or choice of the IP should now be the discussion. Since you cant change the current trend and direction, its wasted energy to complain about it. I would rather wonder about what next then to worry about what happened back then. When I go to a park, what happened back then doesnt matter. I cant ride Horizons or the original Imagination, or anything in WoL. What can I do NOW. What are they doing to make the experience new now. I think GotG are misplaced. Couldve had a better plan absolutely. Ill argue the merits of IP Misuse or misplacement all day. The problem now isnt that they are using IPs, it is which ones, where, and whose vision is this. And who will design the attractions, make it fit, make it worth my time? Will the creative minds be muted by people above? Based on the announcement of the new leadership, I think even with the demand to use IPs by those in charge, hopefully now they will be placed properly and done well. Rather than half done. The changes to management structure and new leadership should clean up a lot of the issues that have plagued WDW management for years.
My response was wishful thinking. In five years original content will be in the minority. The castle parks were meant to be predominantly IP. Epcot was something fresh. But it’ll be the MK 2.0 with a few attractions that wouldn’t fit in a Kingdom.
smile
Well-Known Member
and basing an entire pavilion about imagination around a movie that contained only a depressing subplot does?
is imagination as an idea not worth more than trivialization at the expense of a relevant IP?
especially when considering relationships, cranium command/health is where io could actually fit... if it must
While Inside out didnt have the warm loving subplots a movie like Up does, the subplots and overall plot were thoughtful and relevant. They were real and represent something kids experience at one time or another. My opinion is that the Pixar movies have come a long way and while they always are warm and at times gut wrenching ( at least in the first 10 minutes usually), they teach a lesson and go deeper than many other fluff animated movies. I would not be opposed to Inside Out as long as it is used properly. And I agree it makes no sense in Imagination. Coexisting with BH6 in WoL makes sense.
EPCOTCenterLover
Well-Known Member
Could I "like" this to infinity and beyond?
I try and not view it as an arbitrary rule but more of a factor that creates distinction. The "Im fine with Ip's as long as they do it the right way" attitude seems misplaced (not saying you said that). Many people felt/hoped that FEA would be "done the right way" such as have some form of cultural relevance or educational aspects of real Norway. We now know that is not the case. Some have said the same for GotG and will say the same for any IP they put in the park. I personally believe the Imagineers could pull it off, but it does not seem they will be allowed to. And that is the rub for me. The potential is there, but it seems they prefer to pass it over in favor of simply building a roller coaster.
Would I like more attractions? Absolutely. I think we all do. It just feels like a fading of identity will occur over the next few years. Its like the picture Marty Mcfly has in Back to the Future and they all slowly disappear. Spending a day at MK engulfed in Fantasy allows for so much more of a unique experience when you visit AK the next day and become engulfed in a completely different (but still amazing) environment. Does AK have a touch of fantasy? Absolutely. But it is in context with the theme of the park and does not require an IP. I am referring to the original attractions such as Everest and Dinosaur. It was (and still somewhat is) the same for Epcot and at one point in time MGM studios. The distinction each park has (had) truly creates a better experience by being identifiable to a separate theme than the others. I believe Epcot will still be enjoyable once it is filled with fantasy attractions, just not unique.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
OK
Didn't realize people couldn't feel a wide range of emotions
I'm suggesting accepting it. It's you choosing to see it as me telling you you're wrong. And I'm not doing that. But for those of us who accept and are OK with certain IPs in the park, we're also told we're wrong and how wrong it is. It's simply my opinion.
Well thought out post. Thanks for the reply, even if you were talking down to me and acting superior.
I ask questions so I can understand someone's frame of mind on something I feel differently on. Didn't realize that was wrong either. I can't question why someone feels a different way than I do?
Last edited:
FerretAfros
Well-Known Member
I know you of all people know the history, but I'll take that one step further and say the castle parks weren't even meant to be predominantly IP, rather just Fantasyland was. The other lands were largely based on historical elements, folktales, popular mythology, and exploration. There's a reason that the submarines were moved from Tomorrowland to Fantasyland when MK was being built: they were themed to 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, which was considered to be a better fit for FL than TL at the time.
It wasn't until Splash Mountain was built in DL's Critter Country in 1989 that the fantasy-IPs started to invade the entire park. Yes, Davy Crockett was an opening day element of DL's Frontierland, but his presence was minor and his TV episodes were (loosely) based on an actual historical figure; until the late 80's everything was either original content or based on broad ideas that the general populace could be assumed to know. The real turning point seemed to be DLP's initial build, with fantasy elements more-or-less subtly incorporated into all of the lands; MK then ran with the idea for the rest of the decade and left us with the IP-centric park we know today
With how much things have shifted in the last 30 years and cartoon characters and IPs have invaded every corner of the parks, it's no wonder people constantly ask adults "Why are you going to WDW? Isn't that just for little kids?" At one time, only a small portion of a single park was kid-focused; today, it seems like everything is geared toward kindergarteners
Kman101
Well-Known Member
Thanks Martin. You probably feel like I give you a hard time but that's really not what I'm trying to do. Thank you for not picking me apart like some choose to do
New leadership may give you more of what you are looking for. You are right, the imagineers and creative minds CAN make things work. Even a poorly placed IP they can figure out. But in the past when have they been allowed to do so? Thats about to change.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
It's not misplaced. Why do you think it's misplaced?
Also curious as to what that means. As I stated earlier, its happening and no complaining on a board will change it. So accepting that it is being done but then wanting them to place them correctly and do it right, isnt a good thought?
Kman101
Well-Known Member
Exactly. I'm open to them using IPs in the right way if we're getting IPs. I too cling to hope we get original ideas at EPCOT. I'd love nothing more than a restoral to how the park was. But I'm not going to shut myself off to something new simply because it's an IP from a movie. Me saying that doesn't mean I think someone who does is wrong, that's their right and I respect that, despite what it may seem.
smile
Well-Known Member
there is certainly value in park originated ip, however - and that gets lost in the shuffle...
figment would be a perfect example, as one must actually come to epcot to truly experience him - something saved for the parks, behind the gate.
plastering well known cinematic ip all over, and especially where it doesn't belong, can lead to over-saturation and degradation of the actual ip itself - a perspective some very powerful folks have yet to appreciate, obviously.
great care must taken to ensure a given ip rings true to source and/or is elevated beyond to a more full representation complimentary to the source - potter does the former extremely well while avland is an approach to the later - a direction rightfully assessed after initial contracts were signed.
plopping a giant statue down or shoving a completely ill-positioned show down throats and calling it a day is six flags, nothing more - now, that may not matter to some, but it matters to me.