Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Only 1 reason - money." LOL... I vividly recall arguing on these boards that money was the main reason DCA came up short, and considering what little they had to spend the place turned out pretty good. Of course those comments were consistently and loudly shot down by the DCA haters. Whoo-boy was that a contentious period around here!
Originally Posted By leemac <<Don't get me wrong, we love the rides too, especially Soarin', Test Trak, Mission Space and Spaceship Earth in Future World. Journey into Imagination wasn't bad, but wasn't good either. The same with The Seas with Nemo and Friends. Universe of Energy was okay, but it's not a top priority.>> The point is that the entire of EPCOT Center was built on a scale that has never been replicated since. The original slate of attractions through to Wonders of Life and Norway's additions were exceptional. Pretty much everything since Epcot '94 has stripped back that scale to fit reducing budgets. Future World is the poorer for the changes. Letting WoL rot was the last straw for me. No-one needs to remind me that a lot of Future World needed updating but the bare bones were perfectly adequate in the same way that HM and POTC need TLC and some changes (like those for WDW's HM version in particular) but the basic attractions have stood the test of time. There is no doubt that Universe of Energy could do will updating from the Ellen/Bill Nye the Science Guy premise. However the basic elements - the moving theater concept - is still unprecedented in the theme park world. The "reveal" to the Jurassic period still is one of the finest theme park effects ever developed. For me those pavilions offered a sense of wonder and discovery that I've never experienced since. The joy at simply wandering around and finding new exhibits or shows was like nothing that had come before or since. It is a shame that budgets mean that a pavilion is largely just a one trick pony now.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <For me those pavilions offered a sense of wonder and discovery that I've never experienced since. The joy at simply wandering around and finding new exhibits or shows was like nothing that had come before or since. It is a shame that budgets mean that a pavilion is largely just a one trick pony now.> ^^^This. Well said leemac. I feel the same way.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn ^^^ God bless the internet: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.martinsvids.net/?cat=10">http://www.martinsvids.net/?cat=10</a>
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 While I really like the restaurants and shops on World Showcase, EPCOT as whole seems very run down and dated. There are huge areas of nothing but concrete, the rides (except the updated Test Track) are all somewhat run down, and the buildings in World Showcase need a little TLC. Maelstrom may have been a good ride when it was new, but the two times I have gone on it (2012 and this year) it was very obviously in need of some serious maintenance. I am willing to bet that all of the people who love the ride so much and are now up in arms about the change are more in love with their memories of the ride that with the ride as it is now. It is time for it to change. I also predict that the new ride will be immensely popular, and that many of the same people who are freaking out right now will love the new version as well. It is the way it always is when Disney announces they are making a change. I personally hope that they do something really creative and fun with this new Frozen ride. Epcot needs it.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<"I've been to Epcot with many different groups of people of varying ages, from toddlers to my 60-something parents, and each group regarded Maelstrom as a must-do. Maybe my experience is different from the general public, but I think that Maelstrom's value has been inflated because of the lack of other rides in World Showcase.">> Guess I'm really odd... I haven't bothered with it for probably 10 years now. I just never thought it was a very good attraction to start with, and when I started to see how poorly maintained it was becoming I figured "Why bother?". On the other hand, I think "Impressions de France" is not only one of the finest attractions in the Showcase, but in all of Epcot. It's not like I need a thrill ride to keep me happy.
Originally Posted By u k fan I sit in the middle on this as I would rather a ride in the Norway pavilion represented Norway. I'd be less bothered if the Snow Queen actually was a Norwegian story. That said, I also understand that we are long-time Disney farts and the times they are a-changing. If I show my nephews (all aged 11 and under) one of my favorite movies from the 80s I can pretty much guarantee they'll be bored before the midway point. It looks old and doesn't tell the story in a way they relate to. Why should theme parks be any different?!!!
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Although not stated outright, it's strongly implied in the Blog post that it will still be called Norway, though the ride will be replaced: "So I’m pleased to say that we’re starting construction at Walt Disney World Resort on a brand new “Frozen” attraction at the Norway Pavilion in Epcot. The new attraction, which replaces Maelstrom..." "We think these “Frozen” elements are great complements to the Norway Pavilion..." In other news, I mailed off (in the real mail) a letter to Disney expressing my dissatisfaction with this announcement. It was addressed to Tom, but I also sent copies to Bob, Meg, George Kalogridis (head of WDW), Sam Lau (head of Epcot), and Bruce Vaughn (creative head of WDI). I certainly don't expect any responses from the people that I actually sent it to (especially since the WDW crew's mailing address is the same as Guest Communications), but it will be interesting to see if I get any response at all from the company
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt If you don't expect a direct response to your letter then what outcome do you expect?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Hans - people might read letters and have a reaction to them and not personally respond.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Plus he just might make a new friend after sending his letter. He could pick up a new pen pal!!!! ORGOCH: Yeah, well, I wish you'd pick up a new virus a some kind that'd put ya outta commission fer a good, long time!!!
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "If you don't expect a direct response to your letter then what outcome do you expect?" It's a way to make an opinion heard. And a hard copy make a bigger impact. It's better than bitching on a website. Now, it will probably have almost no impact, but it can't hurt (unless you write it in the style of on Micechat crazy, that probably would have a negative impact). But if you feel strongly, why not? I bet he does get a response, but it may not be much more than a form letter.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I'm just hopeful that they'll even read the letter. At best, it gets my opinion to them and gets PR to send me a form letter in return. Realistically, some PR intern reads it and throws it in the trash before it goes any further, but it makes me feel better knowing that I made an honest effort to get my thoughts out there. It was written thoughtfully to avoid typical fan babble, giving a firm but respectful POV, and I printed it out on really nice resume paper in hopes that it might stand out a little more But yah, I'd also settle for a new pen pal too. I can just imagine having to catch up on my regular correspondence with Mg Crofton! : )
Originally Posted By magic0214 Did anyone see this (<a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://t.co/D3BIopWiYL">http://t.co/D3BIopWiYL</a>) Huffington Post article today? They state that the apparent plan for the redo is to elongate the trough for the boats and switch the entrance and exit for the attraction. Thoughts?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip We rode Maelstrom today and I was glad to ride one last time. I still don't think it is a very good attraction, and what is there is way too short. The movie at the end was actually better than I remembered. Perhaps it is now so out of date that it seems current again. I can't say I will miss the attraction at all.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>They state that the apparent plan for the redo is to elongate the trough for the boats and switch the entrance and exit for the attraction.<< I believe that's a simple way of saying a more complex rumor that I first heard many weeks ago. According to that theory, the load and unload will both take place at the current unload area. The queue will be rerouted so that the majority of it takes place in the existing theater, freeing up the current switchback area to become another show scene. It's unclear if they'll be able to reroute the flume (at most, it would jut into that space a little before turning back to the lift hill; it's not a huge space) or use the existing route, but it would allow them to have a longer ride time. I'm somewhat concerned about this plan, since the ride will undoubtedly be popular, and will need some significant queue space; once it begins an outdoor overflow queue, the whole pavilion turns into an unpleasant mess Due to the ride's setup and orientation, they really can't just switch the exit and entrance without building a bridge over the ride (like small world), which seems unlikely with ADA to worry about. As it is now, the exit must always be to the left (facing the attraction entrance) of the queue. But where you physically get on and off the ride could easily shift within the building
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Had no idea that Jim Hill was writing for Huffington Post now. A couple details in his article made me wonder. The Little Mermaid DID have an attraction at Disney MGM Studios, which is still running. And, there was a rather large Ursula barge as part of Fantasmic, and she was incorporated into pretty much every daytime parade ever, and also had a float in SpectroMagic. So...to say that it took 12 years to get an attraction is not really true. Granted, Mermaid Lagoon, and the two Mermaid darkrides at DL and WDW are long past due, but it's not like there was nothing before. Also, his detail about the "blonde" Ariel doll was weird. I remember a lot from when the movie came out, because it was what rekindled my love of Disney, so I noticed a lot of the merchandise. And...never a blonde Ariel, and also not Mattel. Tyco was the company that had the doll license at that time. There was an Arista doll though...maybe he's thinking of that. Anyway, yeah, nitpicky, but it's those kinds of details that he seems sure of "Mattel was sure girls didn't want to play with red-head dolls" but I often find he makes stuff up to suit his articles. So, with all that said, it just means that I take his rumor about the reconfiguration of Maelstrom for Frozen with a huge grain of salt. It's totally possible, as Ferretafros detailed, that the flume gets extened, but I'll just wait to see what actually happens instead of trusting Jim Hill's information.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Darn it! Ariel had floats etc. It looks like I said that Ursula did, but it was just poor wording. I would love to be able to edit...
