What is 'Say Goodbye Ellen'?

[MickeyTigg]

According to Screamscape -

As part of Epcot’s 25th Anniversary, we’ve been led to believe that yet another rehab to the Universe of Energy will take place. No one seems sure if this will just be another new “show” idea squeezed to fit into the existing attraction as they did when they added Ellen and Bill Nye or if they will attempt to upgrade the ride and effects from the existing ride story instead.

 

[Rosso11]

I'm sure this is going to be the the rumored Monsters Inc redo that has been rumored for years. Its a perfect fit. I'm sure this will be green lit immediately following guaranteed hugely successfully reopening of the living seas nemo re-theme. Disney will look at the giant crowds at living seas and simply copy that formula into Energy.

 

[MickeyTigg]

I'm hoping this is true...whether it's Monsters replacing it or not...that would be great, but this attraction is beyond dated.

The dinosaurs are still cool, as Bill would say...but the Ellen thing is just old, plus it's been there a while. Who can't recite the script?

 

[-SIR-]

It is indeed dated... but I still love the show... especially the big bang part where the earth is forming... gives me chill bumps everytime... the actaul ride part is lacking lacking lacking for sure! All of the animitronics/effects are all 80's style. I still appreciate the writing in this one... but I still think Ellen could be more humorous. I have to say I would welcome a change to UOE but im not sure I want another animated feature thrown into the mix. Im kind of dissapointed with the "lets fantasyland all of Walt Disney World" thing. They take the old tiki show, alien encounter, dream flight and The living seas and now possibly uoe ... all things that were never meant to have charactors... for me this tends to cheapen the quality of entertainment at the resort. Lets hope they do something original.

 

[BeachClubVillas]

I'm sure this is going to be the the rumored Monsters Inc redo that has been rumored for years. Its a perfect fit. I'm sure this will be green lit immediately following guaranteed hugely successfully reopening of the living seas nemo re-theme. Disney will look at the giant crowds at living seas and simply copy that formula into Energy.

How on earth does Monsters Inc. fit into Future World?? M:S and TT fit in with the theme, even Nemo still fits with the Living Seas theme, but how would Monsters fit? I'm sorry, I'm not attacking you, but if Disney even thinks of doing that, it means they've really gone off the deep end. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Madison]

How on earth does Monsters Inc. fit into Future World?? M:S and TT fit in with the theme, even Nemo still fits with the Living Seas theme, but how would Monsters fit? I'm sorry, I'm not attacking you, but if Disney even thinks of doing that, it means they've really gone off the deep end. Just my opinion of course.

Most of the film is set in a place that harvests a natural resource to produce energy. How is that not related to the Universe of Energy pavilion? I wouldn't want to see a Monsters, Inc.-themed attraction, per se, as much as I think it'd be a great use of familiar characters and stories to segue into a discussion of the importance of finding and using alternative energy sources.

 

[Thrawn]

How on earth does Monsters Inc. fit into Future World?? M:S and TT fit in with the theme, even Nemo still fits with the Living Seas theme, but how would Monsters fit? I'm sorry, I'm not attacking you, but if Disney even thinks of doing that, it means they've really gone off the deep end. Just my opinion of course.

Space fits in with the future.
Innoventions fits in.
Test Track doesn't.
The Living Seas did (don't know about the new one).
Soarin, though awesome, is more present than future.
Energy right now has more to do with the past and present than the future.
SSE covers all three, though is weak on the future.

"Future World" really isn't a great name at this point. The old DiscoveryLand rumor fits more and more with each major refurb.

 

[BeachClubVillas]

Most of the film is set in a place that harvests a natural resource to produce energy. How is that not related to the Universe of Energy pavilion? I wouldn't want to see a Monsters, Inc.-themed attraction, per se, as much as I think it'd be a great use of familiar characters and stories to segue into a discussion of the importance of finding and using alternative energy sources.

If they set it in a place that harvests a natural resource to produce energy, then it could be neat. I didn't realize the movie was about that. If you think about it, a good chunk of the ride now focuses on new ways to harvest energy. I was picturing Disney building a Fantasyland-style dark ride. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[disneyisbest]

Ah yes screamscape. Yet another reliable internet source(he said with great sarcasm). I don't see Monsters Inc. coming to EPCOT. The only attraction that EPCOT has with any Disney character influence is having nemo involved in The Living Seas now. I don't see where Monsters Inc. would tie in with anything in EPCOT

 

[disneyisbest]

Space fits in with the future.
Innoventions fits in.
Test Track doesn't.
The Living Seas did (don't know about the new one).
Soarin, though awesome, is more present than future.
Energy right now has more to do with the past and present than the future.
SSE covers all three, though is weak on the future.

"Future World" really isn't a great name at this point. The old DiscoveryLand rumor fits more and more with each major refurb.

I think Test Track was more of a sponser tie in than anything else.

 

[castlecake2.0]

Future World seems to have the same problem that Tomorrowland did, its almost impossible to have attractions reflecting the future because the future is too hard to predict. Even from the 80's/ early 90's era EPCOT, future world wasn't all about the future.

Spaceship Earth, like Thrawn said, lacks in the fuure part, looking mainly at the history of communication.

World of Motion looked mostly at the history of transportation.

Universe of Energy again showed alot of the history behind Energy

Wonders of Life and the Living seas seemed to focus on the present

IMAGINATION! was, I don't even know....

The only attraction that seemes to totally focus on the future was Horizons, which dated quickly.

SO even though I hate the name, Discoveryland (too magik kingdom for me) may be a better fit. In regards to the original post, I really hope that Monsters Inc is not added to UoE, even though the theme fits. It just doesnt seem right to me.

 

[CTXRover]

I could see a Monsters tie-in work IF they used the characters as a vehicle to present the story of energy, how we harvest it and its future. Basically I could see it as replacing Ellen as the host with the Monsters characters, whose storyline was all about harvesting Energy anyways, hence the tie-in. But I could understand why this could be seen as just an excuse for another character invasion. That said, I think putting Nemo in the Living Seas was the best way to re-energize that pavilion back up, and the same could be possible for UOE.

 

[MickeyTigg]

I could see a Monsters tie-in work IF they used the characters as a vehicle to present the story of energy, how we harvest it and its future. Basically I could see it as replacing Ellen as the host with the Monsters characters, whose storyline was all about harvesting Energy anyways, hence the tie-in.

Right...what I don't think will fit in will be the long called for "door sequence". While agree that it would make a neat ride...just not in UOE or Epcot, for that matter.

 

[KumbaRider]

Regardless of the fact that Future World no longer truly personifies the "future", I do NOT agree that a Monsters Inc. tie-in would be appropriate. Yes, this may sound hypocritical, but I can see how Nemo can re-energize TLS. Monsters Inc. has very little "future" or "energy" tie-in, whatever others may argure. The fantasy style of the film seems inappropriate for Epcot.

 

[wannab@dis]

It seems that some of the folks that don't want to see "character invasion" have forgotten that in the early years of Epcot, the biggest complaint by guests was the lack of characters. Disney introducted characters to future world and instantly they saw increased guest satisfaction. Once again, we have to remember that the purists are an ultra minority when it comes to the parks. The general public want the warm and fuzzies that the characters generate.

As to the name of "Future" world, it is suffering the same problem that Tomorrowland had. The only way to keep Future world future is to make changes and additions every few years. The original pavilions were dated almost immediately and will probably continue to suffer until another name is selected. Discoveryland (or similar) would be more appropriate.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Ok. I get the tie in. However, it just seems unnecessary. The thing about any movie tie in is that IT GETS DATED QUICKLY. Monsters, Inc. was very popular, but it is starting to wane. If you make a ride based on the film itself, it works. However, without the entire storyline, it gets cheapened and confused. The problem with UOE is not the story IMHO, it is merely a matter of time spent. UoE is a LONG LONG show. I think this might be a chance to have the alleged trackless system from TDLR. I think that might be acceptable for the Monsters, Inc. tie in, again, IF IT IS DONE AS A VEHICLE FOR THE STORY. With a general introduction about the film (i.e. how they gather energy), they could present a pretty good story about energy collection and overuse. Get rid of the two theaters and fill them in with ride elements, make a new generation dark ride, and have something great for the families.

 

[MickeyTigg]

Many of us have for a while anticipated the arrival of the "door sequence" as an attraction at WDW. If they could somehow tie in the characters of Monsters, Inc. to the pavilion....I think the "doors" would be a bad move. It doesn't have enough to do with the concept....and if that's the case, "doors" is dead as an attraction at WDW. There is now way they'd have two attractions tied into the same movie.

So...which would you rather have Monsters, Inc. in UOE or the "doors"...personally, I don't see both happening.

 

[Burgstressera]

Three words... Bring Back Horizons :sohappy:

And I'm missing how Monsters Inc fits in here too. The movie was about making little kids scream to create a power source - so I guess I kind of get the energy tie in, but still how does that... :veryconfu I'm confused.

 

[-SIR-]

yes Epcot Center did gain numbers with the addition of characters but that was in the 80's when people had no idea what epcot center was about. Now Epcot has become a household name, people know what its about and they know what to expect. Most people I know consider Epcot to be the most "adult attractive" charming park that it is... that doesnt mean that there shouldnt be plenty for kids to enjoy but it also doesnt mean that nearly every attraction need a character "tie-in". I think the fact that epcot isnt full of "warm fuzzies" is what sets it apart from the rest of the parks and makes it unique. I like to think of it as the reality based fantasy park. :animwink: just my opinion

 

[sabian]

The flaw with Monsters, Inc. is that it would assume that everyone saw the movie in order to make this connection. Not all adults have seen this movie, and, i find, that EPCOT is more adult oriented. I feel that Monsters would take away from the overall message of the attraction because they would have to set up the characters for all of the adults who have not seen the movie. (Disney does have a large following of people without kids.) I just think it is too far a stretch for this attraction. Monsters would fit in Tomorrowland, i.e. , Timekeeper's area. But Epcot, no. I just cannot see it. I see everyone's point. But, if you honestly think of the logistics involved, MOnsters would be harmful to Future World. Thrawn, i see what you mean about things "fitting," but, at least those attractions deal in, Quazi-reality. Monsters, Inc, to me, is way too far a stretch and hinderence to Epcot. There is no place for it.