Inoventions, what happened?

[DisBeamer]

Yes!! Yes!! Yes!!
It's got to be more!! He was just telling me what Disney's corporate idea is. I wish y'all could here what he thinks. You would hear someone who get's totally disillusioned! They have a hard time getting replacement lights!! I've got to repeat that...replacement lights
Yes VELCRO??? What's up with that???

I feel bad for your friend; it must be an awful thing to be on the forefront of the disillusionment like that. =\ Did he start working there because he's a big Disney fan (or .. was a big Disney fan), or was it 'just a job'?

The subs thing is a good point. Obviously they didn't recycle the original attraction, but the re-purposed it in a similar way to the original. I wonder what the impetus for that was? Maybe someone (Lasseter?) was a big fan of the original subs? I can't imagine they just left them lying around, figuratively speaking, in DL with the thought that 'well someday we'll use them again', or the could have done the same in WDW. Maybe there was some kind of building restriction that prevented them from filling the pool in DL... I dunno. It's (an off-topic) curiosity, but at least shows they're willing to acknowledge the past in some instances. They seem to be doing that more and more with Epcot these days (well, sorta; not necessarily in non-superficial ways).

[Jacca5660]

Yes!! Yes!! Yes!!
It's got to be more!! He was just telling me what Disney's corporate idea is. I wish y'all could here what he thinks. You would hear someone who get's totally disillusioned! They have a hard time getting replacement lights!! I've got to repeat that...replacement lights
Yes VELCRO??? What's up with that???

I feel bad for your friend; it must be an awful thing to be on the forefront of the disillusionment like that. =\ Did he start working there because he's a big Disney fan (or .. was a big Disney fan), or was it 'just a job'?

The subs thing is a good point. Obviously they didn't recycle the original attraction, but the re-purposed it in a similar way to the original. I wonder what the impetus for that was? Maybe someone (Lasseter?) was a big fan of the original subs? I can't imagine they just left them lying around, figuratively speaking, in DL with the thought that 'well someday we'll use them again', or the could have done the same in WDW. Maybe there was some kind of building restriction that prevented them from filling the pool in DL... I dunno. It's (an off-topic) curiosity, but at least shows they're willing to acknowledge the past in some instances. They seem to be doing that more and more with Epcot these days (well, sorta; not necessarily in non-superficial ways).

He applied for his job 3 or 4 times before getting hired. He still is a big Disney fan (although he would deny that to everyone and not be real happy I'm outing him on it). It sad when something you love is being treated this way!
The subs for WDW where destroyed! They would have to remanufacture them to bring them back. There are no restrictions on Disney putting water in the hole in the MK.

[Joe90]

I think it is impossible to please everyone on the subject of innovations.
What some people find interesting others will find tedious. I also think there is a fundamental problem with how attractions get into Innoventions.

As an example.
How we produce sustainable plastics from vegetable oils.
The development of methods for recycling plastics.
Products (like Velcro ) being manufactured from recyclable plastics.

Would this subject meet the criteria for entry into Innoventions? i.e. Is it relevant to today and tomorrow, innovative and cutting edge? Yes, without a doubt. Would it be interesting to everyone? Almost certainly not.

Should such an exhibit make it into innoventions? Yes.
Would such an exhibit make it into innoventions? No.
Why would it never get in? Money.

Most of the leading edge research companies, working in technological areas, are pushing the limits of there budgets on the subject under development. In today’s business environment filtering off funds to produce an exhibit only makes sense if you can demonstrate that it is going to generate income for the project (Or at least break even). An exhibit in Epcot would be extremely hard to justify to project leaders and finance departments. (Trust me on this!)

It could be argued that innoventions exhibits are “museum likeâ€

[DisBeamer]

He applied for his job 3 or 4 times before getting hired. He still is a big Disney fan (although he would deny that to everyone and not be real happy I'm outing him on it). It sad when something you love is being treated this way!

Well, his secret is safe with us.

The subs for WDW where destroyed! They would have to remanufacture them to bring them back. There are no restrictions on Disney putting water in the hole in the MK.

Oh, I know the WDW ones went the way of the dodo. I was more wondering about why the same didn't happen in DL, 'cause they were closed for a long period of time too, before they got new life as Nemo, right? So it got me to thinking why was it okay to have them closed in DL and just leave the pool there, versus WDW where they felt the need to go ahead and fill the pool in. The restriction thought wasn't so much on building the ponds, but rather on filling them in. I'm sure they would have loved to have the space at DL they could have gained by filling that pool, and there's no real way they could have seen Nemo and his popularity coming to know that someday, in the future, we'll have something to put here. S'just a bit of a mystery to me.

Most of the leading edge research companies, working in technological areas, are pushing the limits of there budgets on the subject under development. In today’s business environment filtering off funds to produce an exhibit only makes sense if you can demonstrate that it is going to generate income for the project (Or at least break even). An exhibit in Epcot would be extremely hard to justify to project leaders and finance departments. (Trust me on this!)

This makes a lot of sense in theory, but then again looking at what's in Innoventions, it doesn't seem to reflect what's in there. I guess it depends who's funding the fire safety, UA testing and garbage collection things, etc; maybe those have some kind of government funding (anyone know?). Also I'm not sure it really jives with Velcro being in there... has anyone of us actually seen the Velcro display and could comment on the likelihood of it generating income for whatever company owns Velcro?

I would honestly think that given the (potential) exposure you'd get for any product you could stuff into a Disney park, even if you're only going to count on a fractional return versus the number of potential customers who'd see it, people would be fighting to get their items into Epcot. I mean, not to turn Innoventions into an As Seen on TV store, but if Innoventions harkens back to the World's Fair showcase idea of the Epcot of old, I would think companies would be flailing madly trying to get their products in there for people to gawk at (and then go home and/aspire to purchase). Even if we let budget-stressed 'highly innovative' companies out of the running, surely there's someone out there with something a tad more advanced than Velcro that they'd like to have thousands of people troop past every day? Maybe the issue is in the decision-making process on who to let in, rather than who wants in. (I feel bad picking on poor Velcro. Velcro, you rock. )