What if there was character interactivity in Epcot? (SURVEY)

[Cheekylittlerobot]

EDIT* Since people were getting confused, I changed the title. Also, THIS IS A SURVEY AND IS MEANT TO GO ALONG WITH A FULLY RESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL EPCOT, NOT THE CURRENT EPCOT!!! Please CAREFULLY read the main posts and my other posts BEFORE voting!!*

I know that the title is a little confusing but let me explain. I'm not going to post the whole idea I had here because then it would have to go into the Imagineering section but I'll give you the basics.

I think that if you were to bring back old Classic Epcot attractions without a cohesive story/theme and generating interest in the classic characters/stories, it will be very hard to get younger people interested. One of the biggest qualms people both young and old had about the original 80's Epcot was the lack of Mickey and Co. However, the true problem to me is not really the lack of Mickey specifically but the lack of engaging characters with real stories. Yes, there was Figment and Dreamfinder, but they just kinda come out of nowhere and don't have a backstory or anything to explain why they even exist. (plus not everyone likes them so they alone are not enough!) Any other characters have even fewer things featuring them and didn't make much of a difference.

In order to generate interest in these new,(to most people) characters, why not unite them together? Since they don't really have their own movie "universes" to call home, why not make the park their "home" if you will and the Epcot is the place they come to share the important aspects of the world they represent with all of us. I really like seeing Disney characters interact together and I think it would make Epcot a unique park in a good way. They can interact with each other via character meet and greets, social media ect. I think this could help bring more life and energy in Epcot that the Magic Kingdom already has, plus it could unite the pavilions more and make it feel less random and more fun for kids and adults.

But what do you think? Do you think that this could potentially more the classic rides more relevant if they were brought back(along with an update to other things as well)? I would I like an public opinion on this before I include it into my Imagineering project.

 

[GhostHostWiththeMostToast]

Interesting idea. I could dig it. My only nitpick is I don't think anything other than corporate sponsorship agreements, bad luck, and misguidedness killed Epcot Centre. It certainly wasn't due to lack of interest. Those old rides were big, bracing, and successful in their day; if they were properly maintained and updated, they still would be.

However, as a new way to get folks interested, sure, why not. Sounds cool.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

I know the addition of IPs has been loathed by many but for me, its not so much that it is being done but how its being done and what we are losing in the process. I don't mind using Disney IP's to help edutain guests so long it is done in a respectful, appropriate manner. GotG going into Energy because Peter Quill once visited Epcot, a Frozen ride in Norway, or an Aladdin meet and greet in Morocco....poor, inappropriate use of IPs. Using Inside Out to teach us about how our brain works, using the cast of WALL-E to teach us about the importance of resource conservation and protection, Ludwig von Drake teaching me about math, or Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker teaching me about science all could be potentially palatable to me if executed properly and balanced out with non-IP attractions like Imagination (obviously refurbed to bring back to form) and SSE.

 

[Cheekylittlerobot]

I know the addition of IPs has been loathed by many but for me, its not so much that it is being done but how its being done and what we are losing in the process. I don't mind using Disney IP's to help edutain guests so long it is done in a respectful, appropriate manner. GotG going into Energy because Peter Quill once visited Epcot, a Frozen ride in Norway, or an Aladdin meet and greet in Morocco....poor, inappropriate use of IPs. Using Inside Out to teach us about how our brain works, using the cast of WALL-E to teach us about the importance of resource conservation and protection, Ludwig von Drake teaching me about math, or Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker teaching me about science all could be potentially palatable to me if executed properly and balanced out with non-IP attractions like Imagination (obviously refurbed to bring back to form) and SSE.

Yeah, I agree. My idea was to have official IP's more so in the world showcase or at least a 50/50 ratio of IP's and originals

 

[Fox&Hound]

Oh this is an interesting idea. But other than figment (who I agree could use a boost on backstory) what other classic park characters would you bring back? Can you provide some examples of your new shared universe of ride icons? Thanks....

 

[DarthVader]

Epcot: The Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. It was supposed to be a blueprint of the future, but with Walt Disney's passing that idea never was fully fleshed out. Instead they designed a location with what the future could have for energy, the sea, the land, etc.

With that said, Epcot was very un-disney like when it opened as it lacked rides and attractions that drew people like the Magic Kingdom. Over the years they've added more and more but the fact remains its not like MK and its harder to pull in younger folks. Their inattention of Epcot for years and years only compounded the issue, i.e., Capt. EO, Ellen's energy ride, etc. I think those tombstones in front of the park have to go as well.

I enjoy Epcot, and the world showcase, but I can say my kids don't enjoy it on the same level as MK. Its not a bad park and I think Disney can do a lot with it, but bringing back old characters or using Figment more, is a mistake imo.

 

[Cheekylittlerobot]

Epcot: The Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. It was supposed to be a blueprint of the future, but with Walt Disney's passing that idea never was fully fleshed out. Instead they designed a location with what the future could have for energy, the sea, the land, etc.

With that said, Epcot was very un-disney like when it opened as it lacked rides and attractions that drew people like the Magic Kingdom. Over the years they've added more and more but the fact remains its not like MK and its harder to pull in younger folks. Their inattention of Epcot for years and years only compounded the issue, i.e., Capt. EO, Ellen's energy ride, etc. I think those tombstones in front of the park have to go as well.

I enjoy Epcot, and the world showcase, but I can say my kids don't enjoy it on the same level as MK. Its not a bad park and I think Disney can do a lot with it, but bringing back old characters or using Figment more, is a mistake imo.

Why would bringing back old characters be a mistake? (Assuming it would be done tastefully and with skill.) I don't know about little kids, but I went to Epcot for the first time when I was 12(without any prior knowledge of what to expect) and loved it. It turned out to be more enjoyable than the Magic Kingdom for me. I know not every kid is not me but there is still potential to make it more family oriented without adding IP's and watering it down. It doesn't need to be a family as the magic kingdom, but it needs something for the kids who DO end up going.

 

[geekza]

With that said, Epcot was very un-disney like when it opened as it lacked rides and attractions that drew people like the Magic Kingdom.

That's a common misconception, but it doesn't really reflect the reality of the situation. People loved EPCOT Center when it opened and for years afterward. Anyone who went there during its first five years can tell you that there was no such thing as a walk-on attraction in Future World. They had no problem with attendance or guest satisfaction. However, the park ran something like $30 million over budget before it opened. Also, they didn't take into account that attractions about cutting edge technology necessitate updates every five years or so in order to stay cutting edge. It just wasn't possible for Disney to spend so much money on Future World and their corporate sponsors weren't willing or able to spend the money either, so it stagnated. EPCOT Center was in no way unpopular.

 

[DisneyFreak]

Wasn't Figment's backstory in the song?

Two tiny wings, eyes big and yellow
Horn of a steer, but a lovable fellow
From head to tail, he's royal purple pigment
And there, Viola!, you've got a Figment

So he did just come outta nowhere.

 

[Cheekylittlerobot]

That's a common misconception, but it doesn't really reflect the reality of the situation. People loved EPCOT Center when it opened and for years afterward. Anyone who went there during its first five years can tell you that there was no such thing as a walk-on attraction in Future World. They had no problem with attendance or guest satisfaction. However, the park ran something like $30 million over budget before it opened. Also, they didn't take into account that attractions about cutting edge technology necessitate updates every five years or so in order to stay cutting edge. It just wasn't possible for Disney to spend so much money on Future World and their corporate sponsors weren't willing or able to spend the money either, so it stagnated. EPCOT Center was in no way unpopular.

Thank you! You said it better than I ever could! I think it is possible for them to make attractions that can still teach and be fun without being money eaters.

 

[Cheekylittlerobot]

Wasn't Figment's backstory in the song?

Two tiny wings, eyes big and yellow
Horn of a steer, but a lovable fellow
From head to tail, he's royal purple pigment
And there, Viola!, you've got a Figment

So he did just come outta nowhere.

I meant Dreamfinder more so. Like who is he really..? (Insert X-files music here)

 

[geekza]

I meant Dreamfinder more so. Like who is he really..? (Insert X-files music here)

Yeah, the original character didn't really have a backstory. He was just this steampunky inventor who created a machine to capture dream energy which he used as a source of power to create Figment. The two Marvel Comics series from a couple of years back created a pretty extensive backstory for him, though. They were actually really good and made at least this OG EPCOT Center nerd happy. The success of the first series took Disney by surprise, which is how the second series was approved. There's a lot of love for the things of the past, whether or not some folks feel it themselves.

 

[Cheekylittlerobot]

Yeah, the original character didn't really have a backstory. He was just this steampunky inventor who created a machine to capture dream energy which he used as a source of power to create Figment. The two Marvel Comics series from a couple of years back created a pretty extensive backstory for him, though. They were actually really good and made at least this OG EPCOT Center nerd happy. The success of the first series took Disney by surprise, which is how the second series was approved. There's a lot of love for the things of the past, whether or not some folks feel it themselves.

I agree. I read the comics(online because by the time I found out about them, they were all sold out). I like the first series the best because it is a good backstory but the second series broke the continuity by bringing the young Dreamfinder to the present day. The comics take place in 2015 I think. How can he be 20 something in 2015 or so and be at least over 45 in the 80's???

 

[geekza]

I agree. I read the comics(online because by the time I found out about them, they were all sold out). I like the first series the best because it is a good backstory but the second series broke the continuity by bringing the young Dreamfinder to the present day. The comics take place in 2015 I think. How can he be 20 something in 2015 or so and be at least over 45 in the 80's???

It's because he had been travelling through another dimension, apparently for many years.

 

[Cheekylittlerobot]

It's because he had been travelling through another dimension, apparently for many years.

I still find it very confusing. Oh well.

All I know is for the ride, they would need something short and sweet. Or nothing at all like before. Either way, more character action is needed.

 

[geekza]

I still find it very confusing. Oh well.

All I know is for the ride, they would need something short and sweet. Or nothing at all like before. Either way, more character action is needed.

One of the basic rules of visual entertainment is, "Show, don't tell." A backstory is good to have in order to inform design choices and characterization. With that said, the most successful attractions tell a guest everything they need to know through sets, lighting, sound effects, music, and sometimes small bits of speech. If you have maybe five minutes of a attraction length, you have to pare things down to the essential and use the background details to fill in the gaps. A guest should never have to guess what an attraction is about. That's why I feel like the Na'vi River Journey is a failure. If you are someone who is coming into that ride without ever having seen Avatar or knowing anything about the culture being represented, then all you have is a short boat ride through some very pretty scenery, a couple of screens showing weird animals running off, and then a giant, blue robot at the end that sings to you in an unintelligible language before quickly arriving at the unloading dock. Even if you have seen the film, the ride details don't really mean anything. There isn't a natural progression of scenes that build upon one another. It needed several show scenes that tell their own stories with short breaks in between to bridge the scenes. All you have is one real scene at the end that comes out of nowhere and that tells you nothing about what you're viewing.

 

[Oddysey]

I agree. I read the comics(online because by the time I found out about them, they were all sold out). I like the first series the best because it is a good backstory but the second series broke the continuity by bringing the young Dreamfinder to the present day. The comics take place in 2015 I think. How can he be 20 something in 2015 or so and be at least over 45 in the 80's???

Why are Bart Simpson and Eric Cartman still children. In my opinion, continuity with respect to age is not really important when applied fictional characters.

 

[Cheekylittlerobot]

Why are Bart Simpson and Eric Cartman still children. In my opinion, continuity with respect to age is not really important when applied fictional characters.

However, they are not traveling in time and through dimensions. What you are talking about isn't even close to what I meant... A person cannot be an old man and a young man at the same time.

Either way, I'm doing a detailed project complete with music and pictures explaining what I mean for all of the pavilions. It will be an example of what Epcot could be with updates, character interactivity(plus simple backstory) and merchandise. (It will be done in small parts on the Imagineering forum so don't expect everything at once.)

 

[Cheekylittlerobot]

Oh this is an interesting idea. But other than figment (who I agree could use a boost on backstory) what other classic park characters would you bring back? Can you provide some examples of your new shared universe of ride icons? Thanks....

Other than Figment and Dreamfinder there is Buzzy and General Knowledge(from Cranium Command in WoL), Bonnie Appetite from Kitchen Kabernet, Tom Morrow from Innoventions, Tiger and Bird from World of Motion?(I'm not 100% on that one) And a few others that really don't matter I think. Obviously, they would need to add more characters, but the old ones can be repurposed and rebranded.

 

[MinnieWaffles]

Agreed. The guide books and online forums of that time (Usenet) would always warn about the crowds during various times in the school year due to all of the field trips that schools would schedule. Then, summer crowds. EPCOT was busy.

So much for people thinking you never had to queue or get through a crowded park in the 80s/90s