Tomorrowland, er um Pixarland

Post by **js3901** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 9:29 am

yodiwan1 wrote:I almost dont even want to check the boards anymore because everything seems to be a comlaint.

then don't. simple as that. A response is not needed to every single post in a thread. And if you find something you don't like, you can pass over it.

how was the original theme for mgm lame??

I don't think it was the THEME so much, as it was the entire park. When the park was first built, it was a 1/4 day park, at best. They didn't have anything there. There's just not that much you can do with the movies that haven't been done before. Disney rushed the park to beat out Universal. As such, the park suffered. And what it's become is not what the park was originally built for. But, as with just about everything else in the Disney repertoire, the park evolved. They started including TV and music into the mix.

yodiwan1 · Post by **yodiwan1** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 9:52 am

i agree that it has evolved, and there are some great attractions there now. It's a shame that they stopped productions there, that added a bunch of magic that the park is lacking now, but as to the "theme" of the park I feel it fits. Disney makes some of the best movies, and great television. Why not have a park that celebrates such things, even if they branch out to some that was not origially their own.

Jacca5660 · Post by **Jacca5660** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 10:05 am

I have a question. What in Future World is futuristic? It seems to me to be one long product show case. May be at the very beginning it was the future, but now it's like going to Best Buy without the price tags. When was the last time Iterventions had a futuristic display? Any thing you see now can be bought and installed in your home. I mean (this is a little side ways) they can't make a Bond movie with stuff that's over the top.
If you really want true theming..Let's name it Cutting Edge World or Great Electronics World. Disney (EPCOT FURTUE WORLD) has been and always will be one long happy commercial. I don't have a problem with that. I do think it's ridiculous to argue about a fish (and is not more about a TURTLE?) not belonging? What place does the Coke pavilion have there? For that matter if you want to be really picky, what place does Test Track have there?
As much as I dislike (the Nuns always told me never to hate) admitting it; Mission Space is truly a future item.

There was another post here about the disrepair in the parks and the fixes being "It's new they will like it" I think we need the to give the new blood at Disney a chance. I know Redeacon doesn't like Eisner bashing, but I feel he is wrong on that one. Yea maybe in the Early 90's Eisner made some smart move's, but that ended real quick! For the last at least 12 years of his reign "Disney was raped!". His ego got in the way. I mean he put people (Mostly MBA's and CPA'S) in power that had never been in the parks and had an extreme dislike for the fab five.
You want to know why they are having to pump so much money into the parks? Just look at the corporate reports for the last 12 or so years. It was all about cost cutting. These people were like corporate raiders! It was burnt ground mentality!
Where it goes from here, I don't know! It does seem to be getting better, I can tell from the very long term EPCOT tech's I'm close to. They seem to have a much better out look on the future of the parks.
Now if they could only get more replacement lights in the budget.
Thank you for putting up with my rant

Post by **rdeacon** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 10:54 am

NOTE from me

This forum is meant for, and will maintain an open discussion. Not for childish bickering. If you do not like an opinion that is fine, you may debate your view point, or just ignore the post. Reducing the thread to an argument is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Everyone should feel free to voice his or her opinion and not have to be abused for a certain viewpoint, or have judgments placed upon them.

Ok with that being said....

Oh I do like some Eisner bashing.. I just don't like when people blame him for everything, and don't give him the credit he deserves. Like I stated in previous posts, I feel towards the end of the Eisner era Disney had truly lost his its way and was floundering badly, and I hold Eisner complete accountable for that.

As for MGM, um DHS.. I would completely agree js3901. I don't feel the theme is poor I feel the execution of the theme was not done well and rushed. MGM when it opened was rushed to "beat" universal studios. I have always felt that DHS is the weakest of the parks, and thus my least favorite. I do enjoy the rides in the park, but feel in general large square buildings are very lame. This is also why I generally detest Universal, which is worse the DHS. Disney should have themed the park properly and placed you in the movie, rather then you seeing the other side of how movies were made, ie fake facades, sets, etc. This is especially true after Disney ceased all production at DHS. Yeah another empty warehouse!

Rich

Captain Schnemo · Post by **Captain Schnemo** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 12:18 pm

js3901 wrote:I don't think it was the THEME so much, as it was the entire park.

I agree that the park has always been lackluster in terms of attractions and general design, but this was in large part due to the theme.

Those boring rectangular buildings aren't there accidentally or simply because they represent "movies" (any more than the Living Seas was just "fish"), they were put in because the theme of the park was a behind-the-scenes look at movies (and TV).

Both Disney and Universal apparently agree with my point that this is in fact lame, because they've both abandoned the premise in their parks. Universal's newer attractions (MIB, Shrek, The Mummy, etc.) go for a straight up classic theme park motif, as do the new Disney attractions. There's no "here's how we did the special effects for this movie", they put you into the movie.

There's just not that much you can do with the movies that haven't been done before.

I wouldn't say that. Pretty much all of Disney's new attractions are based on Pixar films, and they are fairly diverse. If you mean an outside look at the movies, there's probably a lot more that can be done, it just isn't that interesting. I think the Great Movie Ride is a nice mix of talking about the movies, while at the same time putting you into the movies. It benefits from avoiding the discussion of how films are made.

Jacca5660 wrote:What place does the Coke pavilion have there? For that matter if you want to be really picky, what place does Test Track have there?

I totally agree that neither of those things should be in Future World.

For some attractions, you can at least understand why they are poorly-themed. Soarin', for example, was made for another park where it fit in. It was popular, so they just crammed it into WDW in a place where it didn't seem completely wrong. Would have been cool if they'd used that technology to fly over one of the World Showcase countries or somehow tied it into a Future World premise.

There's no excuse for something like Test Track, though.

yodiwan1 · Post by **yodiwan1** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 1:15 pm

coke pavilion should be in the world showcase, drinks from around the world. I do love it though, I always bring empty water bottles and fill them up!!!

Post by **rdeacon** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 1:55 pm

Captain Schnemo wrote:There's no excuse for something like Test Track, though.

Sure there is GM money!!!

Maybe part of the issue is due to the money paid by the sponsors. Now its Disney's ultimate responsibility to make a pavilion that fits but I'm sure when GM starts waving money people look the other way and the theme gets kicked to the curb.

Sponsors seem to be like political donations... convenient but troublesome.

At least with SSE Siemens seems to realize the core value of SSE and didn't want to gut it. We will have to judge the rest when the ride opens.

Rich

Cheshire Cat · Post by **Cheshire Cat** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 2:04 pm

Disney should have themed the park properly and placed you in the movie, rather then you seeing the other side of how movies were made, ie fake facades, sets, etc. This is especially true after Disney ceased all production at DHS. Yeah another empty warehouse!

If they had done it right from the beginning then we wouldn't have a need for all these other out-of-place movie-based rides scattered throughout WDW.

Although I don't agree with dropping the "here's how movies made" theme completely. The Art of Disney Animation shows how Disney makes their movies, and is the cornerstone of why MGM/DHS esists in the first place. I think having one area or "soundstage" to show about Disney's personal history in making movies would be great.

Other than that and GMR, I definitley agree the rest of the park should be about putting you in the movies. They could have seperated the park into so many different lands with infinite possibilities.

Captain Schnemo · Post by **Captain Schnemo** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 2:09 pm

rdeacon wrote:Maybe part of the issue is due to the money paid by the sponsors.

Yeah, the sponsors have always been trouble, going back to Disneyland's Tomorrowland spectacular, The Bathroom of the Future. If You Had Wings... was also a fun attraction that did at least tap into the newfound ability of the middle class to travel the world by airlines...but still it was a pretty overt advertisement for Eastern.

It was easier to forgive stuff like the above in those days, since other attractions required a ticket and only the sponsored ones were free, but it was still a bit crass.

The corporate sponsor thing in Epcot stems from Walt's original idea of filling EPCOT with state-of-the-art research facilities, and kind of got corrupted as the concept evolved.

Sometimes they were pretty benign. The Kraft and Kodak themes were noticeable, but not too bad. I was more of a fan of the Horizons-style sponsorship, where they show you something cool and then at the end say it was all brought to you by GE.

I think the post-show at World of Motion and the Energy film were both pretty bad examples of a corporation's evil influence, but at least there are examples of things that were done the right way.

I don't suppose any energy company other than an oil company would have the money to sponsor the Energy pavilion, but it would be cool if an unrelated company that wanted good PR could step in and produce a more even-handed show.

Now that Toyota's actively taking an interest in producing efficient vehicles, they could probably come up with a pretty forward-thinking transportation show. Although I suppose it might be considered unpatriotic to take their money, the Japanese certainly know how to make a theme park, and Epcot is supposed to be a celebration of all cultures...

It does lead one to question why sponsors are necessary at all. For the most part, the other parks don't have them.

yodiwan1 · Post by **yodiwan1** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 2:54 pm

Wasn't Test Track built due to a lack of "thrill ride" at epcot? even thought I don't consider it that, and I ma not saying it fits, but i thought that was the reason...I wsh they cold have thought a bit harder on that one. They could ahve done an entire ride based on traspotation of the future and then hae some thrill aspect, but oh well.

Post by **spaulo** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 3:47 pm

yodiwan1 wrote:Wasn't Test Track built due to a lack of "thrill ride" at epcot?

That's the company line, yes.

Jacca5660 · Post by **Jacca5660** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 3:54 pm

Hey maybe they could get Moller to do a ride with their flying car. You would think with all the corporate money Disney gets they could hold prices down!

Now that Toyota's actively taking an interest in producing efficient vehicles, they could probably come up with a pretty forward-thinking transportation show. Although I suppose it might be considered unpatriotic to take their money, the Japanese certainly know how to make a theme park, and Epcot is supposed to be a celebration of all cultures...

You mean to tell me Toyota isn't an American company?? Say it ani't so!! I think they employee just about as many American's as either GM or Ford and they treat them better!

Sponsors seem to be like political donations... convenient but troublesome.

When was the last time a (and I'm gonna quote you again) politician was convenient?

The last few post here have been about corporate sponsors. Let's face it Walt always had corporate sponsors. One of the current favorite tracks here lately is "The Frito Kid". But as was said early these pavilions were free. Now (like I said in an earlier post.) it's a mall without price tags. Who hasn't been in an electronics store (or watching TV) after being at EPCOT and said to themselves.."I saw that in EPCOT."
Is it that hard for some company to bring in a concept? They do it at trade shows all the time. I'm waiting for the tags on displays at Interventions to have website's and catalog numbers.

yodiwan1 · Post by **yodiwan1** » Oct Tue 30, 2007 4:24 pm

I even rememeber when innoventions had the xerox demostration. All that was, was a giant commercial. Yes I have plenty of free pictures and calenders from it, but how was anything xerox remotely Disney?

The last few post here have been about corporate sponsors. Let's face it Walt always had corporate sponsors. One of the current favorite tracks here lately is "The Frito Kid". But as was said early these pavilions were free. Now (like I said in an earlier post.) it's a mall without price tags. Who hasn't been in an electronics store (or watching TV) after being at EPCOT and said to themselves.."I saw that in EPCOT."
Is it that hard for some company to bring in a concept? They do it at trade shows all the time. I'm waiting for the tags on displays at Interventions to have website's and catalog numbers.
_________________

very well said

Captain Schnemo · Post by **Captain Schnemo** » Oct Wed 31, 2007 10:55 am

Jacca5660 wrote:Who hasn't been in an electronics store (or watching TV) after being at EPCOT and said to themselves.."I saw that in EPCOT."

What's worse is being at Epcot and seeing stuff you bought 3 years ago.

Is it that hard for some company to bring in a concept?

Good point. I remember seeing cool things like GM's electric car and even those 3M windows that darken at the flick of a switch. That's a nice combination of advertising and showing you something interesting at the same time.

I haven't been to Innoventions in a while, so I hope there are at least a couple things like that, but last time I was there, it was all ancient cell phone technology and video games (half of them inappropriate for Disney anyway) that had been released years ago.

A few weeks ago, I saw a Chevy Volt on display on the street at the center of town. You didn't have to pay to see it, it was just a combination of advertising and good press. It shouldn't be that hard to pull that kind of thing off.

Cheshire Cat · Post by **Cheshire Cat** » Oct Wed 31, 2007 2:23 pm

Innoventions has become an area full of games. Things in Innoventions are constantly changing, so I always stop in just to see what's new. Only a few exhibits from the millenium refurb still remain. (I think the video games were one of the first things to go)

The sponsorships aren't very prevelent, and the technology isn't cutting edge, but there's still quite a few things that aren't household items yet. Although, Innoventions is also straying from the future thing. Some exhibits just demonstrate basic science experiments that kids do in elementary school. Like a brightly colored science lab.

I think the most futuristic thing they have in Innoventions is the "House of the Future" section, but I haven't even seen that in two years. If I remember correctly last time I visited that display everything shown was going to be availbale withing the next year (back to the commercial analogy) except for a prototype smart-wheelchair.