Rumor Wonders of Life getting an attraction soon?

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
I wonder what Spaceship Earth with IP will look life...
elsa sse.png
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
I get it. Kind of agreeing and saying that they do a lousy job making them unique and making the guests understand it. They used to truly promote their parks and do specials ... I can understand them all blurring together for some, but how long did they spend telling us in ads that it's more or less one big mega park LOL. I mean watching some past ads for the parks you'd never know there were four parks, so I get the complaint they're all the same.

But what is Disney supposed to do? Just ignore their popular movies while guests whine at them? (And no, I don't agree they should shove them in anywhere "just because", either) Then they'd be criticized for not doing anything with a popular IP, so they kind of can't win here. I don't like that they feel they have to add a character/IP to everything but that's what they and Universal have conditioned their guests to expect.
Epcot's peak attendance was when out early something original and different. It started to decline as the classic attractions were replaced/updated to be made more 'relevant' with celebrities and character IPs. Attendance has been bolstered a little with the festivals, but Disney knows that isn't sustainable.

Summary: People aren't necessarily clamoring for more IPs in Epcot. They just know what is there now isn't satisfying, and they compare it with something that is (MK) and so they say Epcot needs to be more Disney. Yet history shows that Epcot at its best does attract crowds.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
Epcot's peak attendance was when out early something original and different. It started to decline as the classic attractions were replaced/updated to be made more 'relevant' with celebrities and character IPs. Attendance has been bolstered a little with the festivals, but Disney knows that isn't sustainable.

Summary: People aren't necessarily clamoring for more IPs in Epcot. They just know what is there now isn't satisfying, and they compare it with something that is (MK) and so they say Epcot needs to be more Disney. Yet history shows that Epcot at its best does attract crowds.

I really wasn't trying to say they didn't attract a crowd. I'm well aware of how popular Epcot was. And how much I personally love the original attractions they had even if I was too young to remember most of them. I appreciate what was there and personally I feel like they should still be there (along with some added thrills).

I'm also well aware it's Disney pushing the IP mandate and they insist that is what guests want. But I do feel a large section of the visitors to the parks now are conditioned to expect IPs. I'm not sure why people keep taking my posts as supporting this when I don't, I'm just talking about how I see it and why they're doing what they're doing. I just don't hate every IP used (though I'd agree many aren't used correctly and a few just don't fit).
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
No, it’s not fair when they’re going in the wrong park. They have two other parks for that very reason, one of which still needs more help.

But, it’s happening. Only a highly unlikely landslide change of management will stop it.

But some of us don't feel like some of them are going in the wrong park, so (I'd hope people are aware I don't agree with Frozen and Guardians and Nemo is Seas is terribly weak) .... Just because I don't mind certain IPs going into Epcot doesn't mean I'm not aware of the ridiculous IP mandate (Flights of Wonder to UP just proves it). Just because I talk about how I see how things are doesn't mean I agree with everything. I've said it before but If I were in charge Epcot's Future World would go right back to where it was in it's glory days. I'd do that but I still wouldn't hate Ratatouille coming to World Showcase, or Coco going into Mexico, or Mary in UK or Inside Out and Big Hero 6 into Wonders of Life. If they weren't attached to feature films the attitude towards them would be different. I respect the no characters mandate and I respect wanting to keep it that way but it's not a reality at this point in time, so I've come to adjust my thoughts regarding Epcot.

I want Epcot to be what it was and could be again. But what about those guests who just didn't get to experience that? I'm not saying they want IP everywhere but what are they to make of what is known as Epcot? It's a real shame Future World is a hodgepodge mess. Personally I'd keep the IPs out of Future World. I really don't mind venturing to France and then being able to visit with Remy (at least the theater is staying!), but I know the idea of that just doesn't make sense to some people. I don't really find it "wrong" and it's kind of hard to always be told it's wrong. I respect wanting to uphold Epcot to what it was but there's not a lot of respect for those who view it a little differently. IMO. Not really saying from you, though. You're always a gentleman and respectful.

EDIT: And respect goes both ways. I know there are some posters who lecture the Epcot purists on their inability to change, etc. (which isn't what it's about, it's not about "hating any change" and they don't seem to understand that). I also think those that can't understand and respect those who remember Epcot as it was need to do some research on what Epcot was. They'd realize what they missed out on and why you and others don't like the current direction.

But Epcot purists also kind of need to understand many view the park differently too. It's not their fault. It's the company's fault.
 
Last edited:

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
But some of us don't feel like some of them are going in the wrong park..
Everyone will think differently. It’s clear the two Bobs do too.

EDIT: And respect goes both ways. I know there are some posters who lecture the Epcot purists on their inability to change, etc. (which isn't what it's about, it's not about "hating any change" and they don't seem to understand that). I also think those that can't understand and respect those who remember Epcot as it was need to do some research on what Epcot was. They'd realize what they missed out on and why you and others don't like the current direction.
Nicely put.

Let me add I’m happy for the Paris Frozen project. Right location, well executed.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Epcot's peak attendance was when out early something original and different. It started to decline as the classic attractions were replaced/updated to be made more 'relevant' with celebrities and character IPs. Attendance has been bolstered a little with the festivals, but Disney knows that isn't sustainable.

Summary: People aren't necessarily clamoring for more IPs in Epcot. They just know what is there now isn't satisfying, and they compare it with something that is (MK) and so they say Epcot needs to be more Disney. Yet history shows that Epcot at its best does attract crowds.
Although the changes made to Epcot, initially didn't help attendance I feel that the timeline is a bit off there. The classics were dying off before many of those change ever happened. There was more to the decline then just changes. I was and still am a major fan of EPCOT, but, even I was getting board with the classic rides and had started to re-experience them less and less. The lines out the doors of Imagination and Horizons had long since stopped happening. The only one that I didn't get sick of wasn't there long enough for me to get sick of and the was WoM. I don't know how anyone could think that Energy wasn't improved by the change to Ellen due to the fact that previous to that it was nothing more then a gigantic infomercial for Exxon. If one thinks that Ellen is a snooze fest then the original was more of a coma inducer.

In my opinion it was more the change of desire from the guests and taking awhile for Disney to figure out the most logical direction to go. To me it is that to think keeping the old that wasn't supporting itself, no matter how good we thought is was, is not in anyone's best interest. The current demand is of the use of IP's, something that everyone can identify with. Two years from now, who knows? It might be something completely different. EPCOT was great. Hell, I'm great, but, am eventually going to die off. It is the cycle of life and it applies to entertainment venues as well as people.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
For me they’d use original IP specifically designed for the park and shove the movie tie ins into DHS.

But we know that won’t happen.
I think the approach to IPs in EPCOT should be, "if the movie doesn't exist could we sell this idea as a pitch for the park". I think I'd buy Ratatouille as a pitch for the France Pavilion, and Coco for the Mexico Pavilion. I'd buy Inside Out as a Cranium Command type attraction and even Mary Poppins in the UK.

What really bothers me is the publicly stated change from making the real into fantasy. At both the D23 Expo in Anaheim and in Japan, they said Epcot will be where the real becomes fantasy and the fantasy becomes real. The second part of that essentially defends Fantasyland being in Epcot.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
I think the approach to IPs in EPCOT should be, "if the movie doesn't exist could we sell this idea as a pitch for the park". I think I'd buy Ratatouille as a pitch for the France Pavilion, and Coco for the Mexico Pavilion. I'd buy Inside Out as a Cranium Command type attraction and even Mary Poppins in the UK.

What really bothers me is the publicly stated change from making the real into fantasy. At both the D23 Expo in Anaheim and in Japan, they said Epcot will be where the real becomes fantasy and the fantasy becomes real. The second part of that essentially defends Fantasyland being in Epcot.
The quote was fantastic, not fantasy. That *could* be ok if interpreted correctly, although I don't think it will be.
 

trainplane3

Well-Known Member

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
The point is that something new does not and should not need to reference something existing to be considered Disney. Nothing in Frozen was Disney before they made it. If the public can accept a new original film as something Disney and beloved why couldn’t the same principle apply to a theme park land or attraction. Not everything should be self referential.

One wonders if anything original, massive and impressive like The Haunted Mansion or Pirates would ever be built in a Disney theme park today. The answer is probably "no". Bob Iger is focused on branding and merchandise. To him, the parks are just places to push those elements. Damn sad if you ask me.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member

Yes, I've seen those. But, none of them are for WoL pavilion. Thus, my comment that it's odd that all the pavilions of WS have blueprints you can find on the internet, but not so for WoL.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom