Epcot used to mean something

mindflipper · Post by **mindflipper** » Mar Tue 01, 2011 10:50 pm

BTW I am investor, I vote'em all out all the time. But the greatest coalition of investors united under Roy Disney himself was not strong enough to remove Eisner, so to suggest that as a solution is ridiculous. It didn't work with even a founding family member back then, so it's never going to work again in the future.

And IMHO Sub and Len90 are right. It is a THEME park. There is suppose to be a THEME. Each park is laid with generic themes that aren't restrictive, and it shouldn't be too hard for some imaginative people to fill it with attractions that to fill attractions to fit that theme. But as this topic thread is discussing EPCOT, to me this problem is a problem to all the parks. For instance, what does The Little Mermaid ride and the future CARS-land have to do with Disney California Adventures?!? The same with the Monsters, Inc. ride in that park as well. I also think the Studios is also getting away from being a theme-park based on studios and movie-making. It feels more like it's becoming Fantasyland 2. Disney just seems to be sticking rides where-ever they have an open spot instead of trying to fit it in where it can be logically tied to the right theme.

Wizzard419 · Post by **Wizzard419** » Mar Tue 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Roy Disney really was not that important in the grand scheme, he was almost like a trophy they kept after the other Disneys died to say "look, the Disney Family is still totally involved".

Couldn't one argue that they are still a "theme park" since all the attractions are themed? For example, the theme of the matterhorn is an alpine adventure, but it doesn't fit with the theme of fantasyland, and you can see it from main street.

The focus of Epcot's future world is science and tech, the only attractions/pavillions that do not focus too heavily on it would all incarnations of Imagination and the living seas.

Post by **Len90** » Mar Wed 02, 2011 7:41 am

You can make that argument, but you will need to realize then it will be the same point as going to a local amusement park. You can't call it a theme park without a central theme linking multiple attractions/rides together. I know if you remove the centralized themed lands WDW (for me) would be no different than going to Jenkinsons amusement park on the boardwalk in Pt. Pleasant NJ. A theme park is made by the connecting themes and Disney needs to link everything together.

As for the original Future World, the argument can be made that all the pavilions focused on the sciences and tech. Living seas is marine biology and imaginations deals with altering persons sensation.

mindflipper · Post by **mindflipper** » Mar Wed 02, 2011 9:40 am

Wizzard419 wrote:Roy Disney really was not that important in the grand scheme, he was almost like a trophy they kept after the other Disneys died to say "look, the Disney Family is still totally involved".

He was also the only person in the past few decades to lead a nearly successful stockholder's revolt against Disney's management. Give him his due.

Wizzard419 wrote:The focus of Epcot's future world is science and tech, the only attractions/pavillions that do not focus too heavily on it would all incarnations of Imagination and the living seas.

I agree with Len90 that Living Seas is about Marine biology and JIYI is about altering a person's sensations. I think the original JII was focused more on how imagination was a key role in innovations in everything, from not only science but to the theatre and the arts.

Wizzard419 · Post by **Wizzard419** » Mar Wed 02, 2011 1:59 pm

I can only give Roy props for being an activist shareholder, but in the end you are still unhappy with the way things are run. So it becomes a hollow victory overall.

I am aware of what they are focused on but neither is focused on "the future", the living seas was a nice aquarium but not focused on tech/future, and with the imagination pavillion, it wasn't even focused on tech just on how you can fool portions of your brain based on stimuli.

Post by **YZFDonor** » Mar Wed 02, 2011 11:33 pm

1) The Pixies have been going to Epcot for Flower and Garden for years.... Nothing new there.
2) While everyone has great points, several posters have lost the original intent of the post. This post needs to be turned back on course and I believe that is there was a purpose for everything that was done and nothing was done for the sake of "doing something".
3) Sounds like someone in this thread has several Disney Shares and can only think like a true Disney Bean Counter.
4) When did WDW, DLR, DLRP... become the billboards for the latest movie that is no longer in theaters? If something truly fits, use it.
5) In a word, EDUTAINMENT... A lot of people could use some schoolin'.

Rant on....

Wizzard419 · Post by **Wizzard419** » Mar Thu 03, 2011 12:38 am

Wasn't that one of the points of Disneyland? Promote the franchises, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc?

Post by **Len90** » Mar Thu 03, 2011 10:47 am

YZFDonor wrote: 2) While everyone has great points, several posters have lost the original intent of the post. This post needs to be turned back on course and I believe that is there was a purpose for everything that was done and nothing was done for the sake of "doing something".

I think the tangents get onto to figuring out why people are starting to feel like the author of the article and what has happened to cause these people to feel the way they are.

As for the EDUTAINMENT, we are losing that fast. As the article states, there is no point to Mission SPACE in educating you on the training or how to prepare for space travel. It's just a boring thrill ride with a weak pre-show set-up.

Post by **subsonic** » Mar Thu 03, 2011 12:27 pm

Len90: I feel the same with Test Track.

YZFDonor: We're using references to other parks/lands about theming. Ultimately, that's what the article is about. Pixie Hollow in Epcot, not well themed, shortsighted.
Sure it works, sure it will bring in the kids, it's just sad that the original meaning of Epcot is being lost.

I for one, found EPCOT (notice my use of capitals) absolutely amazing as a kid. EPCOT wasn't for everybody. Perhaps it took a certain mindset to appreciate it. I've said in other threads that I truly believe EPCOT helped shape who I am. This site probably wouldn't exist if it wasn't for me visiting EPCOT. I, for one, find that truly inspirational. Do you think kids are affected by Epcot like that now?

Wizzard419 · Post by **Wizzard419** » Mar Thu 03, 2011 1:52 pm

That is hard to measure since what would impress children then is different from what impresses them now (note I am not saying it's better or worse because you can't measure it subjective way).

You hit the nail on the head there by stating that EPCOT isn't for everyone, if it's not for everyone then it's not going to make enough money and then have less reason to expand/work on the park let alone keep it open. The whole point of mass appeal changes is that they want more people to enjoy it, you can have a ecocentric view of the changes and assume everyone else hates the, but clearly they don't.

Post by **subsonic** » Mar Thu 03, 2011 2:01 pm

In perspective, each of the WDW Resorts are different and not for everyone. Yet they thrive, usually because of the quality. Based on what we've been talking about between quality and theming what would you think if Disney made all the resorts similar with no theme and mediocre to save money? It wouldn't matter which resort one went to. It's all the same. But, "it works" and that's what's important right?

Wizzard419 · Post by **Wizzard419** » Mar Thu 03, 2011 2:22 pm

The important thing is that the guests are happy enough to want to return, clearly it's not distressing enough for people here that they vow to never return.

I am surprised at one thing with the article, the author doesn't rail on with DHS considering the most of popular attractions are not really film production, and the studio itself hasn't been a working studio for a very long time.

jacobcary1 · Post by **jacobcary1** » Mar Tue 22, 2011 9:21 pm

My personal feeling is that in the 80's and early 90's the parks were still on track for that unforgettable feeling that you get when you experience something new. This could all spring from my age at the time and now all I can think about is the terrible smell of the guy next to me in line and when are they going to empty that trash that smells so bad, thats needs paint ect. You get the point. My main objective is than when my children reach the age of being able to enjoy the parks, they to will have the same feelings that I had as a child there. All the other things on not important to me anymore. Thanks for all the great post.

Post by **subsonic** » Mar Wed 23, 2011 11:59 am

I hope our children can enjoy Disney and Epcot the same way we did. I guess we'll never be able to know though if they experienced it the same way we did. With EPCOT setting our expectations of the future high as well as broadening our minds as to what can be possible. I wonder what kids today think of Epcot. There's a few in the chat that surprise me, who have been to Epcot in it's current state and then, through the forums, YouTube and web, have looked at the old EPCOT and have said, "Wow, that looked awesome, I wish I could have seen that stuff." I love hearing that. That some youthful people look back on EPCOT and see how awesome it used to be. I really wish Epcot could have stuck more to those themes and simply updated/upgraded attractions as opposed to changing or removing them to make Epcot more "Branded" or "Hip"

Wizzard419 · Post by **Wizzard419** » Mar Wed 23, 2011 12:56 pm

And there are also kids who say the exact oposite, so it's a wash. It's kind of like the Star Wars franchise, adults usually like the original movies best, younger teens/older kids liked the new movies best, and then younger kids like the cartoon series best, with each group saying the others are "inferior" for being different.

Subsonic Radio

Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something

Re: Epcot used to mean something