WDW 35th and Epcot 25th Rumors

[acp]

Surely it'd be better to wait until it's open and you've had the chance to experience the updated attraction before making a judgement like that? Saying you hate something you've not even seen yet seems a bit silly to me...

Andy. Still me.

[Captain Schnemo]

Not if the premise is innately stupid.

It doesn't matter how good or bad the end product is, the idea is horrible. Representing a country using American-made characters (two thirds of which are not even Mexican) from an American movie (which is not even primarily about Mexico) in a theme park that was designed specifically to highlight native cultures (not American reinterpretations of them) and that specifically did not include existing Disney cartoon characters (to distinguish the park from the MK and give its own flavor) is wrong on every level.

It's just like the Nemo ride in the Living Seas. Singing Pixar fish just do not fit into Future World. Everyone seemed relieved that the ride didn't suck, but the point is that it doesn't belong there at all. Put it in Fantasyland with the rest of the cartoon rides, and you'll get no complaint from me. (In aggregate, there is far, far too much Pixar stuff in the parks these days, but I wouldn't have any beef with that particular attraction.)

Anyway, it just shows that Disney either does not know (or, more likely) does not care about what previously made their parks so special. This is just another example.

[Cheshire Cat]

rant...

El Rio Del Tiempo definitely needs an update. The films in that ride are terrible. I think the new idea for using these three characters is great too. True, Panchito is the only Mexican bird of the three, but that means that he may be serving as a tour guide for Donald, Jose and the guests onboard the boats. I also don't think the characters are a bad choice because they were in a movie that was specifically supposed to give viewers a glimpse of what the Latin American countries are like, just as the World Showcase pavillions are meant to do for each of their countries.
It's also worth noting that the movie was first released in Mexico, so in a way, that makes it a bit less American.

On another note if they're going to put Disney movie characters into the World Showcase rides, I think Mr. Toad should come back to WDW and take up residence at the UK pavillion. The buildings in that area always remind me of the Toad Hall facade at DL anyway.

I'm sure all the imagineers have nighttmares of EPCOT and how no matter what they do it's a collosal never-ending problem to keep updating everything. They have been focusing so much on Future World and continuously reworking the front of the park that World Showcase has been sitting neglected for years. Sure, the exsisting World Showcase rides need updating, but the park also needs some new rides. EPCOT has never built anything new since Norway, they've just been replacing exsisting attractions. EPCOT needs something fresh and maybe an anniversary can get that.

[FlatlandMounty]

don't forget that World Showcase is a lot harder to mess with from a legal standpoint. All the countries represented have a say in what goes on there. That's why the merchandise costs more in Japan for the same thing you can get at mousegear. Making changes in World Showcase is hard...not necessarily ignored.

[rdeacon]

I couldn't agree more with Cheshire that ride needed a major refurb. The films were extremely dated and in poor quality. Actually think that a lot of the movies/rides in Epcot need freshing up. I know they are reshooting the Canada movie as well.

In principle I agree with Captain Schnemo, it completely doesn't fit that land. The Three Caballeros is a latin american themed movie, so I guess the imagineers are stretching it a bit. I will reserve any judgment for now and wait till I ride it. I can accept the stretch if the ride is done well.

As for this:

It's just like the Nemo ride in the Living Seas. Singing Pixar fish just do not fit into Future World. Everyone seemed relieved that the ride didn't suck, but the point is that it doesn't belong there at all. Put it in Fantasyland with the rest of the cartoon rides, and you'll get no complaint from me. (In aggregate, there is far, far too much Pixar stuff in the parks these days, but I wouldn't have any beef with that particular attraction.)

Umm how does it not fit? I think its a perfect fit. Fish characters in a fish based exhibit. By your logic, no cartoon characters in Future World, then you need to scrap the beloved Figment.

As for Pixar, let it go. Pixar is now Disney, and thus will be represented in the parks. The only successful movies/characters in the last 10 years have been Pixar. So its a natural progression that they migrate to the park. Now that Disney owns Pixar it will only increase, ie Midway Mania.

I understand that you hold Disney to a high standard, and to a point I agree that they do place ride/characters in strange spots, and they do need to make better rides then they have. But I do feel they have made some progress with Nemo, and Everest. Both well themed and good rides.

By being so over critical you kill the joy that the parks bring. This doesn't make sense to me. I want to enjoy the park not nit pick it to death. Do things like lack of maintenance, and poor shows disappoint me, by all means yes. But not to the point that I don't enjoy, or will ever not go to the parks. I think we should hold them accountable, and when they miss the mark; ie Tiki Room Under New Management, Stitch, etc., they should be called out on it. But by all means enjoy the parks for what they are, a complete escape of reality.

If you really can't enjoy the parks they way they are in their current state, I feel for you. To not be able to enjoy the parks would be the worst thing ever for me.


Rich

[Sarah Turp]

I think that Disney is right to up date things like the Mexico pavilan and the living seas. It is always a shame when they remove something that we like, but if they dont try new things it will just get old, run down and boring.
Admitedly some of the changes really aren't good, like removing figment for example, but they do seem to follow public opinium somewhat and have at least bought him back. I still don't think the new version is as good as the old one in this case, but on other rides the newer versions have been much better. e.g. the new space mountain in Paris.
I would rather they update the rides and make a few changes than leave them falling onto worse and worse disrepair!

[Esmeralda]

On another note if they're going to put Disney movie characters into the World Showcase rides, I think Mr. Toad should come back to WDW and take up residence at the UK pavillion. The buildings in that area always remind me of the Toad Hall facade at DL anyway.

What a fantastic idea! I think that would be the perfect place for a dark Toady ride. Or even Mary Poppins. They could do so much with either of them and really liven up the UK.

I can't remember which thread I read this in, so I'll just note it here. Is it true that they're reshooting the Canada movie? Strangely enough, I think that's one place that hasn't changed too much in the past 20 years.

[rdeacon]

Yes, I found this on several websites.

This is from allears.net

O Canada! in the Canada pavilion is going to be updated and the new movie will possibly debut in summer or early fall.

They are also stating that American Adventure will have a short segment will be added onto the film montage (about 45 seconds), later this year (2007).

Rich

[Cheshire Cat]

All the countries represented have a say in what goes on there.

Oh yeah, I kinda got caught up in my little epcot moment there and forgot . Doesn't Morocco even own the land that their pavillion is on?

[Captain Schnemo]

Umm how does [Nemo] not fit [in the Living Seas]?

First of all, it's called Future World. There's nothing futuristic about singing fish, unless the future is going to be a terrifying place.

Secondly, Epcot was designed specifically to exclude existing cartoon characters. What is the point of making another Magic Kingdom? Epcot was designed to provide a fundamentally different experience from the MK.

Thirdly, it's only superficially related to the Living Seas which was not (as you said) a "fish based exhibit". Originally, it was about the ocean in total and especially the potential for humans to interact with it in interesting ways. The new attraction is not the slightest bit educational or informational, does not relate to the original pavilion's theme, and doesn't add anything to the experience of a "Seabase".

It just makes no sense.

It's a theme park, not just a big collection of stuff that will occupy your mind for a while as you look at it. The overriding themes are what made Epcot such an amazing thing in the first place. It was clear that really smart people put a lot of time and thought into designing a cohesive experience.

"Do we have any Mexican properties for which we can sell merch?" is not the way to begin designing a new attraction. It's insulting, crass, and a slap in the face to the original Epcot Imagineers.

By your logic, no cartoon characters in Future World, then you need to scrap the beloved Figment.

It's not my logic, it's Disney's, and Figment was created specifically for Epcot, thus preserving the "differentness". He also makes sense in a pavilion which focuses on imagination and fantasy.

Pixar is now Disney, and thus will be represented in the parks.

That's understandable, but the quantity of Pixarification is really disturbing. Even the marginal Pixar characters are cannibalizing existing attractions. The Bug movie at AK is fine, but it's very poorly placed. It's not symbolic of the entire park like Spaceship Earth and the Great Movie Ride.

I understand that you hold Disney to a high standard...

Again, it's not my standard, it's theirs. They made the rules, and that was why I fell in love with the parks, especially Epcot. They aren't living up to the standards that made them so popular in the first place, which is depressing and perhaps unwise in the long term. It depends on how long it takes to reach each person's particular breaking point.

The thing they have going for them is that as each new generation gets used to a crappier version of Disney, less is expected of them each year.

By being so over critical you kill the joy that the parks bring.

Disney actually did that for me. I don't dislike the parks because I want to, I dislike them because of years of stupid decisions made by Disney. If they'd only follow their own rules, I'd still be going to the parks, but as it stands, I haven't been there in almost 10 years now. I only live a few hours away, but I can't bring myself to go.

Most of what I'd want to see in Epcot is gone or so corrupt as to make me actually angry (eg, Ellen's Insulting Energy Show). I'm not going to pay incredible prices just to get ticked off.

But by all means enjoy the parks for what they are, a complete escape of reality.

For me, they are only a sad reminder of what Disney should be like.

To not be able to enjoy the parks would be the worst thing ever for me.

Trust me, it's no picnic. I went to Disney at least once every year of my life for at least 25 years, usually multiple times. You could hardly find a bigger fan of the original parks.

I constantly think about going back, but then every six months or so, there's some new insult, some new evidence that Disney has either no interest or no ability to continue to produce the entertainment I love.

So, I go to Islands of Adventure from time to time when I need a park fix. It's no panacea, but it's better than Disney these days.

[rdeacon]

wow... just really sad that you feel that way.

I don't know if its even worth responding back to your post, just really feel bad that you find no joy in Disney.



Rich

[acp]

edit: This turned out to be a longer post than I anticipated, for which I apologise.



OK, you should read this bearing in mind that I went to Walt Disney World last September for the first time. Before going, I'd been reading for several years of the things going on, including various rants (like yours) pointing out how it doesn't fit the original themes any more, etc.

Umm how does [Nemo] not fit [in the Living Seas]?

First of all, it's called Future World. There's nothing futuristic about singing fish, unless the future is going to be a terrifying place.

Secondly, Epcot was designed specifically to exclude existing cartoon characters. What is the point of making another Magic Kingdom? Epcot was designed to provide a fundamentally different experience from the MK.

Yes, and as I understand it from what I've read/seen, the guests that visited wanted to see the characters, which is why they're there. If the people want to see the characters (particularly the children, who might not want to go somewhere to see purely educational stuff all day), then surely it's only logic that they should be there. In moderation, naturally.

Thirdly, it's only superficially related to the Living Seas which was not (as you said) a "fish based exhibit". Originally, it was about the ocean in total and especially the potential for humans to interact with it in interesting ways. The new attraction is not the slightest bit educational or informational, does not relate to the original pavilion's theme, and doesn't add anything to the experience of a "Seabase".

And if you were to actually visit the pavilion, you'd note (as I did) that there are still many exhibits and things there that relate to the original theme. OK, so it has a Finding Nemo overlay on it, but it does (IMHO) still have the educational touch, and is still quite informal. I spent quite a while a few afternoons just wandering around the pavilion looking at the exhibits in there, and the majority of the exhibits are nothing to do with the characters.

It just makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. If you're going to update something, why not add something that will keep people interested, or something to make them think "ooh, something's changed here, let's go and have a look", instead of "Meh, we've seen that before, we don't need to see that."

It's a theme park, not just a big collection of stuff that will occupy your mind for a while as you look at it. The overriding themes are what made Epcot such an amazing thing in the first place. It was clear that really smart people put a lot of time and thought into designing a cohesive experience.

And it still is a theme park. The themeing of the seas area, to me, feels like a seas area. I didn't see it at all as something to occupy me whilst I was there. It was themed to the area's theme, and was interesting to visit and experience.

"Do we have any Mexican properties for which we can sell merch?" is not the way to begin designing a new attraction. It's insulting, crass, and a slap in the face to the original Epcot Imagineers.

I don't think that's quite what they're doing. I would imagine that when the refurb on El Rio Del Tiempo has finished, the characters won't be overly intrusive. Again, it's a matter of adding something to keep people interested and make them come back rather than miss out things they've done in the past and don't see any reason to re-visit.

By your logic, no cartoon characters in Future World, then you need to scrap the beloved Figment.

It's not my logic, it's Disney's, and Figment was created specifically for Epcot, thus preserving the "differentness". He also makes sense in a pavilion which focuses on imagination and fantasy.

So how can you admit that a character belongs in a pavilion where he fits the theme, and yet then contradict yourself by saying that fish don't belong in a seas pavilion? That doesn't make sense.

Pixar is now Disney, and thus will be represented in the parks.

That's understandable, but the quantity of Pixarification is really disturbing. Even the marginal Pixar characters are cannibalizing existing attractions. The Bug movie at AK is fine, but it's very poorly placed. It's not symbolic of the entire park like Spaceship Earth and the Great Movie Ride.

How is it poorly placed? I rather think it's very well placed. You go and dig around a tree near your house. What do you find around there? Bugs. Bugs are found near and under trees, so why not have them fit under the Tree of Life?

I understand that you hold Disney to a high standard...

Again, it's not my standard, it's theirs. They made the rules, and that was why I fell in love with the parks, especially Epcot. They aren't living up to the standards that made them so popular in the first place, which is depressing and perhaps unwise in the long term. It depends on how long it takes to reach each person's particular breaking point.

The thing they have going for them is that as each new generation gets used to a crappier version of Disney, less is expected of them each year.

This goes back to my point earlier about what the guests want. You can put all you want into a place, but if the guests (which I think you'll find is what it's all about) don't particularly want to see it, then it's pointless having it in the first place. The parks have to keep up with what people want. If that means bending the original "rules" (I'm not sure they're rules as such, really) to make it please people, then so be it.

By being so over critical you kill the joy that the parks bring.

Disney actually did that for me. I don't dislike the parks because I want to, I dislike them because of years of stupid decisions made by Disney. If they'd only follow their own rules, I'd still be going to the parks, but as it stands, I haven't been there in almost 10 years now. I only live a few hours away, but I can't bring myself to go.

Most of what I'd want to see in Epcot is gone or so corrupt as to make me actually angry (eg, Ellen's Insulting Energy Show). I'm not going to pay incredible prices just to get ticked off.

So what, exactly, are you basing these (rather odd) opinions on, then? What you've read on the internet, perhaps?

As I stated at the very beginning of this post, before I went to WDW last year, I'd never been before. I'd only seen of it what I'd read. I'd read various things about many of the updates and attractions that are there, a few of which pointing out the bad sides. As a result of all this mixed reactions, I didn't know exactly what to expect..

When I arrived and took the time to actually visit each of the pavilions and attractions, I noted that a lot of the bad stuff(tm) mentioned on the websites was grossly exaggerated. I think you may find that if you actually take the time to go and see these attractions for yourself, you won't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be. I fail to see how you can have a valid opinion of something you've not actually been and experienced for yourself. You can't base opinions on what you've read on the internet.

But by all means enjoy the parks for what they are, a complete escape of reality.

For me, they are only a sad reminder of what Disney should be like.

To not be able to enjoy the parks would be the worst thing ever for me.

Trust me, it's no picnic. I went to Disney at least once every year of my life for at least 25 years, usually multiple times. You could hardly find a bigger fan of the original parks.

I constantly think about going back, but then every six months or so, there's some new insult, some new evidence that Disney has either no interest or no ability to continue to produce the entertainment I love.

So, I go to Islands of Adventure from time to time when I need a park fix. It's no panacea, but it's better than Disney these days.

Again, perhaps you should go and see if your opinions you're showing about these things is correct, given that you've clearly stated that you haven't actually seen these refurbs for yourself yet I fail to see how you can say you "hate" these things when you've not been to see them for yourself.

Andy. My views only.

[GhostHost]

Well, I can certainly sympathize with Captain Schnemo because I think he is probably very much like myself. I suspect that he is a very sentimental person with memories of the parks in it's earlier years. I find myself having feelings and emotions over inantimate objects when it comes to things like Disney. I am all for change when it serves to preserve an object or a vision but change just for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing. When I go to the parks now and I sit on a concrete wall or touch a brick from a building I think to myself "this was here when I was a kid and it's exactly the same now as it was then" and that's a great feeling for me. I suppose I am a creature of habit and routine and it's very comforting to me to return to a place I love and see the same attractions and theming I have come to love over the years. The sights, the sound and the smells all trigger great memories for me. Captain Schnemo, I hope you make it back to the parks one day and I hope that you find that the benefits of all the good things Disney has to offer far outweighs the poor decisions they have made over the past 10 years. I don't think that holding a grudge over this and standing on principle is worth diminishing your enjoyment of an overall good experience. If you feel otherwise, I understand completely as we share many of the same concerns over the current state of affairs at Disney parks.

[subsonic]

I mostly agree with Schnemo on this one. I'll extend the topic a little bit to include some other parks. Also, keep in mind I recently visited WDW after an 8 year lapse.

Yes, and as I understand it from what I've read/seen, the guests that visited wanted to see the characters, which is why they're there. If the people want to see the characters (particularly the children, who might not want to go somewhere to see purely educational stuff all day), then surely it's only logic that they should be there.

The thing they have going for them is that as each new generation gets used to a crappier version of Disney, less is expected of them each year.

I completely agree with this one. In fact, I believe this directly relates to the "Declining by Degrees" theory. The problem is new comers don't know any better and that Nemo isn't what EPCOT stands for. What does Nemo have to do with an "Experimental Prototype"? I did enjoy the ride, but it doesn't fit.

I feel all Disney thinks about is what can make them a boat load of money right now. They know Nemo and Pixar movies are popular so they shove that down our throats by sticking it everywhere. Which brings me to Tomorrowland. At WDW there's now 2 Pixar Attractions and Stitch. I remember Tomorrowland being so cool because of what the future could be. Throwing cartoons in there makes it Fantasy. I don't care if it takes place in futuristic settings. That future will never be possible.

I'm all for updating attractions. This is much different than re-theming them. I think that Disney got the updates right on DLR's Haunted Mansion. They upgraded the effects and added more/different characters. The same goes for Pirates, I was very afraid Disney was going to destroy the attraction, but I think the changes are for the better. Again, it's a change/upgrade, not re-theming the attraction.

"Do we have any Mexican properties for which we can sell merch?" is not the way to begin designing a new attraction.

I very much think Disney has been doing this. It needs to stop. They have been doing it for years now and it's starting to show. Even Lasseter said Disney needs to bring Quality and Originality back to the parks.

I really would like Future World and Tomorrowland to be just that. Not Fantasyland.

[Captain Schnemo]

OK, you should read this bearing in mind that I went to Walt Disney World last September for the first time.

Not to be rude, but I think this explains much of your response.

Yes, and as I understand it from what I've read/seen, the guests that visited wanted to see the characters, which is why they're there.

This is vastly overstated. Epcot's attendance numbers have remained relatively constant throughout its lifetime. There are some expectations people will have when they visit what they are told is a Disney theme park, of course, but the whole point of Epcot was to provide a different experience. I don't object to a few walkarounds or something to keep the very young kids happy, but there should not be entire pavilions devoted to the characters, because if you want to see that, you might as well just go to the MK.

And if you were to actually visit the pavilion, you'd note (as I did) that there are still many exhibits and things there that relate to the original theme.

I was referring specifically to the Nemo dark ride. And I expect that, one at a time, the non-character-based elements will be removed and replaced with more Nemo. It's been the pattern. The other elements I'd enjoy were mostly built in the 80s...I don't think they deserve compliments for simply not destroying certain good things.

If you're going to update something, why not add something that will keep people interested, or something to make them think "ooh, something's changed here, let's go and have a look", instead of "Meh, we've seen that before, we don't need to see that."

This is a common complaint which completely misses the point. Yes, certainly constant change is necessary at Epcot. To not do so would be complete negligence. You can't call a place Future World and not update it for 25 years. But the updates should be in line with the reason the park was popular in the first place.

The themeing of the seas area, to me, feels like a seas area.

But that's only the most superficial of analyses. Epcot is (was) about much more than just "all wet stuff goes there". There was a unifying theme of optimistic human advancement which is not at all reflected by singing fish, cars going really fast on an asphault road, or Ellen celebrating idiocy.

So how can you admit that a character belongs in a pavilion where he fits the theme, and yet then contradict yourself by saying that fish don't belong in a seas pavilion?

Singing cartoon fish do not belong in the Living Seas because the original concept is much deeper (har) than you are giving it credit for. It's a Fantasyland ride with no relevance to the basic concept (which is not simply "fish"). The old pre-show hardly had any fish in it at all! If anything, the fish were only an effect to help realize the Seabase concept, which has been completely abandoned.

Imagination was a pavilion designed specifically to celebrate the creativity of the human mind, which is responsible for all progress. Abstract as well as scientific thought was the topic, so a "figment" is perfectly themed. And, as I said, it's unique to Epcot, not some property which would make more sense in another WDW park.

You go and dig around a tree near your house. What do you find around there? Bugs.

Again, you're being incredibly simplistic. The Tree is the symbol of the entire park. The attraction associated with it should encompass the entire animal kingdom. If you asked anyone to sum up the AK experience, no one would think of bugs.

I think what you're reacting to is the lower bar Disney has set during your experience with the Disney parks. There used to be a grand vision for things, not just "well Buzz Lightyear is kinda sorta not really futuristic...let's put him in Tomorrowland!".

Maybe it doesn't bother you, but the reason I enjoyed Disney so much in the first place was the extra thought and planning that made it rise above mediocrity. Epcot's grand vision was the attraction for me. It was much more than the sum of its parts.

You can put all you want into a place, but if the guests (which I think you'll find is what it's all about) don't particularly want to see it, then it's pointless having it in the first place.

You don't really believe that putting more thought into providing a better quality product would drive anyone away. I'm not suggesting that Disney ram anything down the throats of their guests. But it's analogous to the the situation with blockbuster films. You can make smart ones or stupid ones, both of which will make tons of money, but the smart films don't alienate anyone and the stupid films do.

Part of the brilliance of Walt Disney was the creation of entertainment that appealed to everyone from the lowest common denominator to snobs. No one would ever complain that an attraction was "too good".

If that means bending the original "rules" (I'm not sure they're rules as such, really) to make it please people, then so be it.

The rules are what made Disney special. You can certainly entertain people with much less, but you don't have something truly wonderful any more.

So what, exactly, are you basing these (rather odd) opinions on, then? What you've read on the internet, perhaps?

No, I watched Disney decline for years before I gave up going back. I saw what was going on with my own eyes.

In terms of recent changes, I've watched some video and such, and I've seen the Nemo attraction for example, but I didn't need to see it to know that it was completely wrong for the Living Seas.

When I arrived and took the time to actually visit each of the pavilions and attractions, I noted that a lot of the bad stuff(tm) mentioned on the websites was grossly exaggerated.

I don't think you have enough information to make that kind of judgement. The complaints are (typically) based on comparisons to things you haven't seen.

...I fail to see how you can say you "hate" these things when you've not been to see them for yourself.

It's about ideas. I don't need to see Test Track to know it has nothing to do with the future. It might be a fine, well-constructed attraction which provides satisfying thrills, but it has nothing to do with Future World.

I think GhostHost has pretty accurately characterized my nature, but I would like to point out that things have been going wrong for much longer than my absence. I was driven from the parks only because of what I personally experienced.

I'm not staying away from Disney due to a "grudge", but because Disney doesn't have what I want any more. I used to be more than willing to pay for a particular sort of experience, but Disney isn't selling that any more. The product has fundamentally changed, and I don't enjoy the new product.

I'd be foolish to pay for something I don't like.

subsonic gets where I'm coming from. I love a good attraction "plussing". I think the holiday versions of the Haunted Mansion and it's a small world are terrific. They give you something new, but they don't take a dump all over the old either.

Attractions should constantly get tweaked (as long it's not done just for the sake of change) as new ideas spring up and new technologies become available. The facelift DL's Fantasyland got a long while ago now was great. New effects were added, facades were improved, and whole new attractions were added without destroying existing ones.

That's what the "Disneyland is not a museum" line is all about. Not simply "OK, what are we going to bulldoze to insert the flavor of the week?".