• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

What's going on with Epcot Future World?

NoChesterHester

Well-Known Member
With UOE,it's an okay ride with Ellen but I still have love for the original. Do any of the kids of this generation know who Bill Nye is? I was on the ride one day and a kid next to me asked his mom who the guy in the lab coat was like a hundred times.

That is the issue with using celebrities. Sadly many fans have come to expect it.

Attractions that use actors playing characters have more longevity. Great example is the Dinosaur pre-show. Felicia Rishad is in that, but those of us that remember the Cosby show aren't like hey that is Mrs Cosby!!!
 

NoChesterHester

Well-Known Member
Im all for updated but the conept is fine....as for nemo....pixar doesnt fit with the future.:)

Future World has been more like Present Day World for a long long time now. What is left that gives us a universal inspiring vision of the future?

Hang gliders over California and how we grow plants in laboratories today?

The bastardized history of communication with a silly animated video as the finale?

A broken sad ride with Dr Nigel Channing?

A ride about testing automobiles that illustrated an idea about how they tested vehicles in 1990?

A simulated flight to Mars that teaches us more about Botox and hair plugs then the reality of space travel in the future?

A movie about fossil fuels that has a short interlude 65 million years in the past?
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
I'm just curious on how they'll handle the summer crowds when TT is closed and Soarin' is crazy. There's no way they'll reopen WOL. I'm planning a trip in June but I don't think I'll go near the Soarin' madness. :p

With UOE,it's an okay ride with Ellen but I still have love for the original. Do any of the kids of this generation know who Bill Nye is? I was on the ride one day and a kid next to me asked his mom who the guy in the lab coat was like a hundred times.

Test Track will be down for 5-6 months. Remember that Soarin' only opened 6 1/2 years ago, Epcot existed without both of them open for 23 years. My hope is that this is somewhat manageable and they see that a similar closure of Everest is also reasonable.

It's also a testament to the fact that the slow build cycle results in these sorts of problems. Had the belief been that they should build at a more aggressive pace, they could better absorb this downtime without incident.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Test Track will be down for 5-6 months. Remember that Soarin' only opened 6 1/2 years ago, Epcot existed without both of them open for 23 years. My hope is that this is somewhat manageable and they see that a similar closure of Everest is also reasonable.

That was also during a time when they had other major attractions that people had an interest in going into.. JIY, UOE, WOM, SSE, Horizons - all massive people eaters. Living Seas could keep people occupied for hours. Add to that the time killer of Communicore and FW was bustling with capacity people were interested in. JIY had a popular movie and popular play area.

Now no one wants to go in JIY and to a lesser degree UOE. JIY's movie is 20+ years old and not really pulling people. Horizons is replaced by an attraction large percentages can't or won't get on. Living Seas people do once and the only way it holds people is because Turtle Talk's wait is long.

EPCOT is going to be left with only SSE and Soarin' as rides people are interested in FW. It's not going to be anything like the 80s. It's the park of the 90s stretched to it's thinnest.

What EPCOT needs to do is move Soarin's FP machines outside and/or dramatically alter how they distribute soarin FPs.

Maybe it will show them just how bad they f'd up the park and push to reinvent CommuniCore, JIY, UoE, and Seas.
 

Horizonsfan

Active Member
Maybe it will show them just how bad they f'd up the park and push to reinvent CommuniCore, JIY, UoE, and Seas.
^ Great Post.

One can only hope. There's no excuse for a park like EC to suffer, when the company that owns it has as much creative talent as Disney does (never mind the load of capital as well)
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
That was also during a time when they had other major attractions that people had an interest in going into.. JIY, UOE, WOM, SSE, Horizons - all massive people eaters. Living Seas could keep people occupied for hours. Add to that the time killer of Communicore and FW was bustling with capacity people were interested in. JIY had a popular movie and popular play area.

Now no one wants to go in JIY and to a lesser degree UOE. JIY's movie is 20+ years old and not really pulling people. Horizons is replaced by an attraction large percentages can't or won't get on. Living Seas people do once and the only way it holds people is because Turtle Talk's wait is long.

EPCOT is going to be left with only SSE and Soarin' as rides people are interested in FW. It's not going to be anything like the 80s. It's the park of the 90s stretched to it's thinnest.

What EPCOT needs to do is move Soarin's FP machines outside and/or dramatically alter how they distribute soarin FPs.

Maybe it will show them just how bad they f'd up the park and push to reinvent CommuniCore, JIY, UoE, and Seas.

I wrote something on our site about Epcot titled Why Epcot?

The thing is, these were all high capacity attractions that never had the lines that Test Track or Soarin' did because of that high capacity. Since 1983, Disney didn't need to add capacity to that park, they needed to modernize it. This meant innovative thrill rides replaced the classic favorites. This is Disney talking by the way, not me. But in Disney's case the masses were underwhelmed with Epcot - it was innovative, but you had the masses that wanted characters and thrills.

Epcot was forced to evolve and many classic fanboys felt that this evolution was for the worse. If Horizons and Journey into Imagination existed in their original forms our perspectives would be different. We would be looking at them as rundown attractions in need of updating. The problem is, when something is replaced by an inferior attraction, the predecessor is praised that much more.

In all likelihood though, Disney would have updated the classic attractions in the same way they updated Spaceship Earth and fans would have been just as upset about what has been done. Additionally, by adding attractions like Test Track, Soarin' and Mission: SPACE to the previous roster of attractions would have made the higher capacity attractions like Horizons, World of Motion, Journey Into Imagination, Spaceship Earth and others seem that much more barren.

When I was a child, I remembered spending hours in Epcot without going on a ride. Whether it was playing upstairs in the Image Works, outside in the fountains, or inside Communicore I enjoyed all of those things. The route of the problem that we're all seeing is that we don't agree with how that park did actually evolve. I would hope that we all recognized that it needed to evolve, it just didn't do it all that well.

As to the original point that I made - Soarin' and Test Track have existed together for 6 1/2 years. Prior to that, Test Track existed without Soarin' for 6 years. I would expect that while Test Track is down for refurbishment that Soarin' will see Fastpasses run out much earlier in the day, but the crowds at the other attractions in the park won't be hurt all that much because there are still plenty of high capacity attractions in the park. I've said this before and I'll say it again - those people that want to see The Odyssey and Wonders of Life replaced with functional buildings should also recognize that buildings like Imagination and Universe of Energy are nearly as problematic - they're open but the attractions housed inside are such poor draws that they might as well be replaced entirely. What this means is that they could re-open Wonders of Life as a new pavilion, and shutter Universe of Energy except for special events.

The problem in Epcot has never been capacity - it has been an original theme that was very difficult to evolve. The result of this problem has been solutions that aren't quite solutions, and a Future World theme that is no longer cohesive.
 

aladdin2007

Well-Known Member
I wrote something on our site about Epcot titled Why Epcot?

The thing is, these were all high capacity attractions that never had the lines that Test Track or Soarin' did because of that high capacity. Since 1983, Disney didn't need to add capacity to that park, they needed to modernize it. This meant innovative thrill rides replaced the classic favorites. This is Disney talking by the way, not me. But in Disney's case the masses were underwhelmed with Epcot - it was innovative, but you had the masses that wanted characters and thrills.

Epcot was forced to evolve and many classic fanboys felt that this evolution was for the worse. If Horizons and Journey into Imagination existed in their original forms our perspectives would be different. We would be looking at them as rundown attractions in need of updating. The problem is, when something is replaced by an inferior attraction, the predecessor is praised that much more.

In all likelihood though, Disney would have updated the classic attractions in the same way they updated Spaceship Earth and fans would have been just as upset about what has been done. Additionally, by adding attractions like Test Track, Soarin' and Mission: SPACE to the previous roster of attractions would have made the higher capacity attractions like Horizons, World of Motion, Journey Into Imagination, Spaceship Earth and others seem that much more barren.

When I was a child, I remembered spending hours in Epcot without going on a ride. Whether it was playing upstairs in the Image Works, outside in the fountains, or inside Communicore I enjoyed all of those things. The route of the problem that we're all seeing is that we don't agree with how that park did actually evolve. I would hope that we all recognized that it needed to evolve, it just didn't do it all that well.

As to the original point that I made - Soarin' and Test Track have existed together for 6 1/2 years. Prior to that, Test Track existed without Soarin' for 6 years. I would expect that while Test Track is down for refurbishment that Soarin' will see Fastpasses run out much earlier in the day, but the crowds at the other attractions in the park won't be hurt all that much because there are still plenty of high capacity attractions in the park. I've said this before and I'll say it again - those people that want to see The Odyssey and Wonders of Life replaced with functional buildings should also recognize that buildings like Imagination and Universe of Energy are nearly as problematic - they're open but the attractions housed inside are such poor draws that they might as well be replaced entirely. What this means is that they could re-open Wonders of Life as a new pavilion, and shutter Universe of Energy except for special events.

The problem in Epcot has never been capacity - it has been an original theme that was very difficult to evolve. The result of this problem has been solutions that aren't quite solutions, and a Future World theme that is no longer cohesive.

I know what you mean. Epcot actually use to take two days to see it all, there was so much to see. These rides ran 16min in length or longer, plus all the various movies and post shows and exhibits, and Imagination upstairs etc etc. Thats all been hacked down to almost nothing. Its staggering how FutureWorld has so drastically changed. Its just a mess now really, but Im glad I got to enjoy it in its golden days.
 

TropicalFig8

Active Member
I remember asking this question,but remember when the original UOE and Imagination had huge lines? What if the originals existed now,would they still be as popular as they were back then?
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I wrote something on our site about Epcot titled Why Epcot?

The thing is, these were all high capacity attractions that never had the lines that Test Track or Soarin' did because of that high capacity. Since 1983, Disney didn't need to add capacity to that park, they needed to modernize it. This meant innovative thrill rides replaced the classic favorites. This is Disney talking by the way, not me. But in Disney's case the masses were underwhelmed with Epcot - it was innovative, but you had the masses that wanted characters and thrills.

Epcot was forced to evolve and many classic fanboys felt that this evolution was for the worse. If Horizons and Journey into Imagination existed in their original forms our perspectives would be different. We would be looking at them as rundown attractions in need of updating. The problem is, when something is replaced by an inferior attraction, the predecessor is praised that much more.

Sorry - you're mixing things here so you can throw out one because of the other.

The fact EPCOT needed to stay current does not justify ripping out the spirit of EPCOT to replace it with large monolithic thrill rides. The need for the park to stay fresh and ahead of times does not mean the only thing to do is change the mission and vision of the park.

EPCOT's biggest problem is the era in which it was built. The late 70s and 80s started what would be the start of an era of technology advancement like the world had never seen before. Little built in that area that dealt with science or technology would hold up for any period of time. And that's what EPCOT faced as it went into the 90s.

But instead of trying to be even more advanced and forward thinking.. the new Disney.. which was an emerging media conglomerate instead turned to contemporary media to try to 'freshen' things (a completely ______-backwards method) and relied on conservative thinking instead of bold new strategy. Every refresh during that time took the attraction BACKWARDS in scale, boldness, and impact. From removing effects, dumbing the show down, and reducing the show itself.

EPCOT certainly got feedback about it's vision and I think much of that had to do with people didn't know what to expect and were put-off when they couldn't find their characters and cartoons. Disney's attempt at 'fixing' that in the 90s was a train wreck.

In all likelihood though, Disney would have updated the classic attractions in the same way they updated Spaceship Earth and fans would have been just as upset about what has been done

If you mean they remove significant portions of the show and don't replace them.. yeah, people would be upset. (its what they did to UoE and JIY). If they actually refreshed and improved things (like the Space Mountain overhaul in DL) then people wouldn't be upset at all.

People mislabel people being upset with these attractions about being upset about change. No they are upset about things that make the show worse.

No one wants an attraction to sit stale and look outdated (as much of FW did at the end of the decade) - that doesn't mean people want it frozen in time. They want updates to be BETTER then what was there before. But most of FW's 'updates' involved an overall reduction in show in exchange for a refresh to contemporary subjects.

No one wants the CoP problem for an entire park - but Disney had to realize by the 90s that most attractions don't last 30+ years without being touched like most of DL did for it's first 35+ years. Times had changed - things moved faster and guests were far more educated, traveled, and demanding then they were 30-40 years earlier.

Additionally, by adding attractions like Test Track, Soarin' and Mission: SPACE to the previous roster of attractions would have made the higher capacity attractions like Horizons, World of Motion, Journey Into Imagination, Spaceship Earth and others seem that much more barren.

Here is your second fallacy to support your point. Why is it that by adding attractions, the others must stay untouched and not refreshed? Disney could have certainly added attractions or done none at all.. it doesn't change that the original FW pavilions needed to be overhauled. The root problem, and the only one that really matters, is that those pavilions needed refreshes.. unfortunately only after a decade+ because of the rapid advancement of society and technology - for which these pavilions were heavily bound to.

The route of the problem that we're all seeing is that we don't agree with how that park did actually evolve. I would hope that we all recognized that it needed to evolve, it just didn't do it all that well.

No one wants FW '83 back. What people want is a park that impressed them like FW '83 did.

As to the original point that I made - Soarin' and Test Track have existed together for 6 1/2 years. Prior to that, Test Track existed without Soarin' for 6 years

And again.. the difference is not those two attractions but the rest of the park around them. The park of today is dominated by these two attractions, while the park of the past was not so much. While these two attractions have dominated attendance, the other parts of the park have continued to decline in draw.. making the park even MORE reliant on these attractions.

The park has plenty of people eating capacity - the problem is it's in places people have little interest to stay in.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Sorry - you're mixing things here so you can throw out one because of the other.

The fact EPCOT needed to stay current does not justify ripping out the spirit of EPCOT to replace it with large monolithic thrill rides. The need for the park to stay fresh and ahead of times does not mean the only thing to do is change the mission and vision of the park.

EPCOT's biggest problem is the era in which it was built. The late 70s and 80s started what would be the start of an era of technology advancement like the world had never seen before. Little built in that area that dealt with science or technology would hold up for any period of time. And that's what EPCOT faced as it went into the 90s.

But instead of trying to be even more advanced and forward thinking.. the new Disney.. which was an emerging media conglomerate instead turned to contemporary media to try to 'freshen' things (a completely ______-backwards method) and relied on conservative thinking instead of bold new strategy. Every refresh during that time took the attraction BACKWARDS in scale, boldness, and impact. From removing effects, dumbing the show down, and reducing the show itself.

EPCOT certainly got feedback about it's vision and I think much of that had to do with people didn't know what to expect and were put-off when they couldn't find their characters and cartoons. Disney's attempt at 'fixing' that in the 90s was a train wreck.



If you mean they remove significant portions of the show and don't replace them.. yeah, people would be upset. (its what they did to UoE and JIY). If they actually refreshed and improved things (like the Space Mountain overhaul in DL) then people wouldn't be upset at all.

People mislabel people being upset with these attractions about being upset about change. No they are upset about things that make the show worse.

No one wants an attraction to sit stale and look outdated (as much of FW did at the end of the decade) - that doesn't mean people want it frozen in time. They want updates to be BETTER then what was there before. But most of FW's 'updates' involved an overall reduction in show in exchange for a refresh to contemporary subjects.

No one wants the CoP problem for an entire park - but Disney had to realize by the 90s that most attractions don't last 30+ years without being touched like most of DL did for it's first 35+ years. Times had changed - things moved faster and guests were far more educated, traveled, and demanding then they were 30-40 years earlier.



Here is your second fallacy to support your point. Why is it that by adding attractions, the others must stay untouched and not refreshed? Disney could have certainly added attractions or done none at all.. it doesn't change that the original FW pavilions needed to be overhauled. The root problem, and the only one that really matters, is that those pavilions needed refreshes.. unfortunately only after a decade+ because of the rapid advancement of society and technology - for which these pavilions were heavily bound to.



No one wants FW '83 back. What people want is a park that impressed them like FW '83 did.



And again.. the difference is not those two attractions but the rest of the park around them. The park of today is dominated by these two attractions, while the park of the past was not so much. While these two attractions have dominated attendance, the other parts of the park have continued to decline in draw.. making the park even MORE reliant on these attractions.

The park has plenty of people eating capacity - the problem is it's in places people have little interest to stay in.

I don't think you actually really disagree with me - much of what I was saying, especially earlier in the post was an explanation of what Disney did, not necessarily something that I agreed with.

But to the point of making attractions like Soarin', Test Track and Mission: SPACE as additions to the park instead of replacements - we have nothing to show that Disney would have handled this well. Most fans of EPCOT Center have disapproved with every "evolution" of every original Future World pavilion. I think we both agree what people want out of Epcot:

No one wants FW '83 back. What people want is a park that impressed them like FW '83 did.

None of us fans know what this is. We had Ron Schneider on our show last week and the topic came up regarding giving fans what they want. He pointedly said, "No, don't give the fans what they want because if you give fans what they want, they'll ask for more of the same."

How should the Imagination Pavilion evolved? We're not sure but the current version isn't it.

How should Spaceship Earth have evolved? Well, not Time Racers - that's for sure. They got it 70% right on the most recent refurbishment, but the Jetson's ending and dumbed down narration is what people focus on.

What about The Land Pavilion? I'd argue that while Soarin' isn't the best thematic fit, this pavilion has evolved better than any other in Future World.

The Seas Pavilion desperately needed to evolve and while many dislike the ride, they succeeded in breathing new life into that pavilion with Turtle Talk and the Nemo content.

I also feel that the Energy Pavilion changed for the better, but that was in 1996. It's an example of something that's just overdue for an update.

I would be interested to find out if Test Track, as a lower capacity attraction accommodates more people than World of Motion did towards the end of it's run. I enjoyed World of Motion, but I think it's safe to say that the masses appreciated this evolution as well.

On to Horizons, count me of the opinion that this should have been given a Spaceship Earth level treatment. Upgrading scenes and technology, modernize the ending and keep it as a marque dark ride. The problem is that Disney made a huge mistake with Mission: SPACE. It was probably the biggest theme park flop in their history. Had Mission: SPACE been a hit, fans would have missed Horizons, but the sting wouldn't have been as bad.

And again.. the difference is not those two attractions but the rest of the park around them. The park of today is dominated by these two attractions, while the park of the past was not so much. While these two attractions have dominated attendance, the other parts of the park have continued to decline in draw.. making the park even MORE reliant on these attractions.

The park has plenty of people eating capacity - the problem is it's in places people have little interest to stay in.

I definitely agree with this - and it's part of what I was saying as well, capacity in the park has never been an issue, and it's largely why it can survive with the "dead areas". Replacing current offerings with better, more in demand attractions, will help take pressure off Soarin' and Test Track. There is certainly enough space to make new high demand attractions in new (or dormant) areas, but my point has been that it's not necessary to "add" attractions to new space in Future World. However, it is necessary to replace many existing attractions.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
I remember asking this question,but remember when the original UOE and Imagination had huge lines? What if the originals existed now,would they still be as popular as they were back then?
A bit in line with the discussion the past page, with the benefit of hindsight
I think we can safely say that Imagination was the most timeless of the FW attractions. I think it would've stood the test of time very well.

Imagination is like the E-ticket version of the D-ticket Little Mermaid ride. A high capacity, elaborate, musical, fun-for-the-entire-family omnimover based on 3-d immersive sets. Classic Disney fare.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
A bit in line with the discussion the past page, with the benefit of hindsight
I think we can safely say that Imagination was the most timeless of the FW attractions. I think it would've stood the test of time very well.

Imagination is like the E-ticket version of the D-ticket Little Mermaid ride. A high capacity, elaborate, musical, fun-for-the-entire-family omnimover based on 3-d immersive sets. Classic Disney fare.

The original Imagination was certainly a fantastic attraction, but it certainly could not have existed without substantial upgrades. Having said that, you can still upgrade an attraction without ripping out it's heart and soul. That's what happened with Imagination.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I can't think of a better use for the Pooh's Hunny Hunt technology than the Imagination Pavilion. I know it had been a blue sky concept, and I think of all the fanboy things I can conceive of Disney ever announcing, it would be the one that would excite me the most.
 

disneyWX

Member
Agree. Sadly they (TDO/management) doesnt care about all these things. Funny how understand it, but they dont.

And why is it that restoring the park to its former "golden" days is not of priority??? Even though Epcot is my absolute favorite park, I don't think anyone - guest or management - believes its largely dilapidated state is acceptable. TDO is riding off of our sentiments of a Disney past...surely they realize this.

Do any insiders have insight into the TDO-Epcot thought process?
 

muteki

Well-Known Member
None of us fans know what this is. We had Ron Schneider on our show last week and the topic came up regarding giving fans what they want. He pointedly said, "No, don't give the fans what they want because if you give fans what they want, they'll ask for more of the same."

I don't think society in general knows what this is. Technology changes so fast that everyone is preoccupied wondering what will come next year and nobody is thinking about what will come in 10, 20, or 50 years. The concept of the 'future' is just not as prevalent in us as a society as it was 30 years ago, whatever the reason may be.

This isn't just a TDO problem - it's everybody. People just don't have a clear of a picture of the future as they used to nor are they fascinated with it as much as the used to be. Drives me nuts.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I don't think you actually really disagree with me - much of what I was saying, especially earlier in the post was an explanation of what Disney did, not necessarily something that I agreed with.

But to the point of making attractions like Soarin', Test Track and Mission: SPACE as additions to the park instead of replacements - we have nothing to show that Disney would have handled this well. Most fans of EPCOT Center have disapproved with every "evolution" of every original Future World pavilion. I think we both agree what people want out of Epcot:

Nothing to show? How about TL'67. How about FL'83? How about NOS itself? Or how about even the MK itself? In the future, the FLE of MK should prove a valuable addition over the overstayed birthday land.

I don't think there is any reason to settle simply because past efforts have been bad. To settle is simply a downwards spiral where each attempt gets worse than the last.

Disney was no longer HUNGRY in it's park design.. it was 'how do we get by with doing the least'. Investing in a single fancy AA in UoE doesn't offset the horrible reductions in show in all the other theaters.

None of us fans know what this is. We had Ron Schneider on our show last week and the topic came up regarding giving fans what they want. He pointedly said, "No, don't give the fans what they want because if you give fans what they want, they'll ask for more of the same."

While true in what he said - I think you are misapplying the lesson. You don't give 'fans what they want' because why would you give the creative direction to people that aren't the creative driver? When you look at the public in large, they know what they've liked and what they don't like... but they aren't the ones to take that knowledge and build something new. The ones that don't know WHY something works can only clone and duplicate efforts rather than take the KNOWLEDGE and apply it in new directions.

This is why you don't just 'give fans what they want' - the general population as a mob are not the innovators. You never move forward if all you do is duplicate what worked before.

This isn't to say fans aren't a guidance - it means you can't take the fans at a literal value and you can't limit yourself to what the fans already know. Else you are just trapping yourself to simply repeat what has already been done.

Walt didn't build DL absent of knowing what the fans wanted - the difference was he played on what drove those wants rather then simply trying to duplicate previous efforts. He wasn't afraid of going outside of what fans 'said' they wanted (or experts said they wanted) because he was able to see and understand the root causes.. rather than simply try to improve upon existing results.

It's like his resistance to do more Pig cartoons after his first success. Fans wanted more pigs! Walt knew he didn't have to repeat himself to find new successes with the same audience.

Fans know they want to be entertained - they don't need to know how that entertainment should be created to understand that and demand that if they are going to spend their money on it. People flocked to WDW by the millions because it entertained and blew them away. There was nothing like it. Now? There is tons like it nipping at its heels, and large parts aren't nearly as entertaining.

Anyone remember when WDW was a RESORT?? The newspaper thread resonates with that so strongly. If people were actually relaxing on their vacation.. they'd have time to sit down and enjoy the news.

How should the Imagination Pavilion evolved? We're not sure but the current version isn't it.

How should Spaceship Earth have evolved? Well, not Time Racers - that's for sure. They got it 70% right on the most recent refurbishment, but the Jetson's ending and dumbed down narration is what people focus on.

What about The Land Pavilion? I'd argue that while Soarin' isn't the best thematic fit, this pavilion has evolved better than any other in Future World.

The Seas Pavilion desperately needed to evolve and while many dislike the ride, they succeeded in breathing new life into that pavilion with Turtle Talk and the Nemo content.

A fan doesn't need to know how to fix it to know it's broke. You don't need to know how to be a world class cook to know the food you just ate was horrible. The good dive in and understand WHY an effort was not well received, not just say 'we'll never do that again..'.

Disney has gotten so conservative and ROI focused they have gotten into this negative feedback loop that kills ambition and boldness. They build something so big, so costly, that it takes a ton to make it's value back. Meanwhile, because it's so big and costly, they can't take risks on things that aren't 'sure bets' to work. Then, because it will live so long, one can justify spending a ton of money. Because they can't keep it simple and agile, the cycle repeats itself, making thing even more expensive, therefore requiring more investment, and making them even more adverse to risk.

JIY? They could have updated the 80s style of colors and updated the idea you could imagine and the effects in the wrap around film room and I bet the original show would have sustained itself much longer.. maybe even to today. Imageworks stations could be refreshed periodically. Physcial illusions and experiences last a lot longer too. Come on, the pin tables would still be a hit today.

SSE? They got the 'refresh' part right with the scenes in the assention and updating the technology references. But they blew the climax at 180top with really nothing to say or aspire to.. and the prologue is just an ambomination. SSE gets credit for almost balancing out the bad with good. But there really isn't justification for all that bad except for people being unwilling to push.

Seas? A good example of 'if we leave it to rot as long as possible, if we give them ANYTHING, they'll be happy with it'. The refurb leading up to Nemo did not really add any value to the pavilion, it simply removed all references to things that had been abandoned long before. Turtle Talk and Nemo attractions themselves are quite good.. but they are gems sitting in a stink pile. IMO, they should have gotten ride of the whole sea aquarium or invested in reworking the guest areas completely. It's sad when HOTELS have better awe inspiring aquarium interactions then EPCOT has. I think undersea living and exploration is still a futuristic concept that could be explored... but the format used by the Seas has long since surpassed. By putting in rides without saving the pavilions soul.. I think they ensured the pavilion and it's root problems aren't going to be solved anytime soon and instead we will be stuck with rides trying to justify their existence trapped in a dying body.

Land evolved? Maybe you mean 'has been able to tread water the longest'? All we need to is compare how DAK's conservatory stations have surpassed what the Land was. The horticulture topics and research are dated. Maybe if Disney were serious, they would try to really make it a high level research facility like they advocate and partner with true industry onsite.. and then the Land could actually show cutting edge things. The fact you can convert to a static spiel (this applies to the studios too) shows just how stagnant your content really is. If there is no variation going on week to week, do you really believe stuff is happening there? They could have resurrected the garden restaurant to a level to actually be a destination for dining again. Heck, it doesn't even need to show the greenhouse.. make a show about nature, the seasons, environments, and make that the revolving scenes.

I also feel that the Energy Pavilion changed for the better, but that was in 1996. It's an example of something that's just overdue for an update.

I would be interested to find out if Test Track, as a lower capacity attraction accommodates more people than World of Motion did towards the end of it's run. I enjoyed World of Motion, but I think it's safe to say that the masses appreciated this evolution as well.

On to Horizons, count me of the opinion that this should have been given a Spaceship Earth level treatment. Upgrading scenes and technology, modernize the ending and keep it as a marque dark ride. The problem is that Disney made a huge mistake with Mission: SPACE. It was probably the biggest theme park flop in their history. Had Mission: SPACE been a hit, fans would have missed Horizons, but the sting wouldn't have been as bad.

UoE has been stripped of it's awe factor. If it weren't for the prehistoric theater.. the thing would be on the chopping block. All the innovation, cutting edge imagry, effects, and awe inspiring staging has been reduced to just being slightly above ordinary. Short of JIY, its the pavilion that has been neutered the worst in FW.

I was never really a fan of WoM. I get it has large sets, and tons of AAs, but it really just felt like 'one in a crowd' to me. TT is a successful upgrade in my book.

Horizons is missed for the same type of reason CoP is cherished. It's a format uniquely Disney laced with story, effects, and awe. Horizons needed an update BADLY and could not have stayed in it's format. But I don't think M:S was a bad replacement.. I just miss my memories of Horizons. Park Ops misses the crowd chewer.

I definitely agree with this - and it's part of what I was saying as well, capacity in the park has never been an issue, and it's largely why it can survive with the "dead areas". Replacing current offerings with better, more in demand attractions, will help take pressure off Soarin' and Test Track. There is certainly enough space to make new high demand attractions in new (or dormant) areas, but my point has been that it's not necessary to "add" attractions to new space in Future World. However, it is necessary to replace many existing attractions.

It can be done both ways.. but adding attractions doesn't absolve one's responsibility to update the others. If they have enough capacity, they can afford to take major things down without causing chaos. But you can't just put hollow entertainment out there with capacity and expect it to chew up crowds.

I'm of the belief of 'quality over quantity' so I'd rather see a reimagined core.. rather then keep adding to the point where things can't be refreshed because you are spread too thin.
 

TropicalFig8

Active Member
Imagination is like the E-ticket version of the D-ticket Little Mermaid ride. A high capacity, elaborate, musical, fun-for-the-entire-family omnimover based on 3-d immersive sets. Classic Disney fare.

If Horizons and Journey into Imagination existed in their original forms our perspectives would be different. We would be looking at them as rundown attractions in need of updating. The problem is, when something is replaced by an inferior attraction, the predecessor is praised that much more.

As RSoxNo1 was saying before,if Imagination 1.0 was still around now,we'd look at it like Splash Mountain where it needs major updates here and there and the result would not end well.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom