Originally Posted By danyoung >Dr. Beth has the clout because she has Joe's ear and vice versa.< Well, it's easy to have Joe's ear - the danged thing has almost ripped off his head on its own!!! Sorry, cheap joke, couldn't resist.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<OK Spirit, you got me on one point. 80's Epcot would not seem very great today. But 80's Epcot was probably better for the 80's period in time than 2007 Epcot is for today's period in time. OK? >> Why couldn't you just say that to begin with?
Originally Posted By leemac <<You might want to tell that to the VP of the park when it was built who went around telling everyone it was designed to be there for a decade 'or more.'>> Structurally it was but then it had to be. It was never supposed to be there in '07. Never. <<<<WDI (including Eric) have been trying to get the wand taken down for years. That decision could only come from WDW management.>> I don't know what Eric wanted, and unless he joins the LP community I doubt we will. I'm more interested in what Eric wants to do to plus Epcot. What Eric thinks needs to happen to Imagination and WoL. What is he going to do about all the 'dead zones' that are now in the park. What about World Showcase? It was always meant to grow and there are at least 5-6 expansion pads for new pavilions, are these just going to be used for Food and Wine Fest temp exhibits? That's what I want to know from Eric.>> There a lot of things on the cards for Epcot. However it is pointless if WDW management isn't prepared to invest in the park. As I've said before it is a giant canvas and everything that is needed is a huge investment. Eric has worked on Epcot since the late '70s and so he has been invested in both the original concept and the subsequent changes.
Originally Posted By DLFAN1979 ""Yes I do. Seventy percent of WDW visitors are repeat visitors. They've likely been on it before."" Oooommmmmmmgggg, yea repeat visitors every 5-10 years maybe. You need to work as a CM 3-5 days a week. Guests do NOT KNOW what the hell any ride is about. I mean after 40 years of television exposure AND 3 films creating a multi BILLION dollar franchise and you DONT know what Pirates of the Caribbean is? Then your.. well you know.....
Originally Posted By leemac The one thing you can say about Epcot is that it is a divisive topic. It is the crux of everything that fans perceive to be wrong with WDW. Fans lament the loss of those AA-laden attractions. However it does seem that the average guest was avoiding those and expecting a different experience. Horizons was undoubtedly the perfect example. Never a line. Not once. It may have been an Omnimover-type experience but I have yet to meet a non-Disney enthusiast that enjoyed that attraction. I am sure some did but it seems the majority voted with their feet. The question is whether Epcot has gone too far the other way. From an educational AA experience to a virtual entertainment experience. That is my concern with the park. It could have handled a mix of the two but management in the '90s opted to totally abandon Barry Braverman's hybrid view of Epcot for a thrill-based experience. That is the true failure of the park. I happen to enjoy most of the changes like Test Track, Mission:SPACE and The Seas with Nemo & Friends but I often wonder whether there was a compromise between the Epcot of '82 and the Epcot of '07.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Structurally it was but then it had to be. It was never supposed to be there in '07. Never.>> That's again not what the VP of the moment said. But he isn't the most honest and honorable exec in Disney's stable. <<There a lot of things on the cards for Epcot. However it is pointless if WDW management isn't prepared to invest in the park. As I've said before it is a giant canvas and everything that is needed is a huge investment>> Yes. And WDW management show no desire to invest in any park that isn't beholden to Joe Rohde. Interesting. I would say if said management can't see the need to invest hundreds of millions into the park that it needs to go find work with WalMart, Darden, GM or companies of that ilk.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Roadtrip, when did you visit Epcot for the first time? Or was it EPCOT Center? By they way, can we change the name of the park back to EPCOT Center?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<The one thing you can say about Epcot is that it is a divisive topic. It is the crux of everything that fans perceive to be wrong with WDW. Fans lament the loss of those AA-laden attractions. However it does seem that the average guest was avoiding those and expecting a different experience. Horizons was undoubtedly the perfect example. Never a line. Not once. It may have been an Omnimover-type experience but I have yet to meet a non-Disney enthusiast that enjoyed that attraction. I am sure some did but it seems the majority voted with their feet.>> I would point out the amazing people-eating capability Horizons had as a constantly moving system. I'd also tell you that I indeed often saw lines for it in the 1980s, although they were very rarely more than the 15-20 minute variety (even when they stretched outside the pavilion) because the ride was amazingly efficient. Things like Mission Space and Test Track, which still has serious operational issues, are not. And I'll point out for the 189th time that when Disney decided it no longer wanted Horizons it did what it always does: remove any mention of it from published materials like guidemaps, take it off resort TV and DVDs etc ... this is SOP and you should know that. <<The question is whether Epcot has gone too far the other way. From an educational AA experience to a virtual entertainment experience. That is my concern with the park. It could have handled a mix of the two but management in the '90s opted to totally abandon Barry Braverman's hybrid view of Epcot for a thrill-based experience. That is the true failure of the park. I happen to enjoy most of the changes like Test Track, Mission:SPACE and The Seas with Nemo & Friends but I often wonder whether there was a compromise between the Epcot of '82 and the Epcot of '07.>> I don't think there's any doubt there was a happy medium, but management had no stomach for it. They wanted two-minute thrills where before you had 20-30 minute immersive ride/show experiences. Incredibly stupid. Soarin is a great example of the happy medium because it isn't too thrilling so that it segments the audience and it took the place of a very bad, very small-scale attraction in Food Rocks, so it was a huge PLUSSING of the Land. Now look at Mission Space. You have a very kewl ride that a good 2/3rds of guests are afraid of (and with some reason as astronaut training may not be in their minds while chowing down at Chef Mickey's!). It's a FAILURE no matter how you spin it (pun intended) because half of the very pricey centrifuges sit unused so to tame it down. Anyway, imagine if the ride was just the start of a space adventure ... a FULL PAVILION with numerous rides, shows, even a full serve resturant amongst the stars ... that would have worked on so many levels from attracting the thrill seekers to the families. Look at Test Track ... did it really need to be added IN PLACE of WoM? With such limited sets and mostly taking part in a giant warehouse, couldn't Disney have simply added a soundstage type building around back and still had the cars doing a loop (or two as they should have) around the building and yet kept WoM inside? Even the Seas, did they have to kill its great futuristic view to add cartoon fish when other options were available? They went the cheap route every single time ... and let's not even talk about Imagination and how lacking that has been.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Oooommmmmmmgggg, yea repeat visitors every 5-10 years maybe. You need to work as a CM 3-5 days a week. Guests do NOT KNOW what the hell any ride is about.>> As Dan Young said, hype can give an attraction lines for a short period. Over the long run it become popular (or unpopular) based on guest experience. To claim that most people boarding Test Track have no idea what the ride is like is totally ludicrous. You are a CM... at Epcot or at Disneyland? The two parks are considerably different.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Yes. And WDW management show no desire to invest in any park that isn't beholden to Joe Rohde. Interesting.>> I don't believe management are beholden to Joe. He was responsible for the newest park on the block and it needed attention. It has got it and more is potentially on the way. That is more about bolstering the park than simply giving Joe the money to plus his park. Ultimately he still had to go through his bosses too to get projects approved. WDW management also wanted projects that WDI didn't feel comfortable with for this park and on virtually every occasion WDI won that battle. I'm sure you can guess what projects those were.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA In 1986-1988, I was a Disney Traditions Instructor -- meaning I was a trainer for the first day cast members who had just hired in to the Walt Disney World Resort. During the tour portion of the day, we'd ride around the property in a bus, and I'd point out various sites. We also got off the bus and would take a short walking tour through both MK and EPCOT. One of the treats was taking my group on 'Horizons' -- it was always a crowd pleaser, and I never heard anyone say 'Gee, that sucked.'
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ I'll take your word for it Jim but then again we are talking about '86. The attraction had been opened three years. The problem was that it became dated VERY quickly. It was little more than a spin-off from CoP. I'm glad some people liked it. I hated it. Bored me to tears. I was delighted to see it bulldozed. It just wasn't visionary enough. I disgress though as this has been brought up a zillion times before. This is the one removal that I never understood why people loved it though. WoM, the original Living Seas and Journey I totally get.
Originally Posted By pheneix >>>Yes. And WDW management show no desire to invest in any park that isn't beholden to Joe Rohde. Interesting.<<< I've got to agree with Leemac in that investment in AK has been out of neccessity and not out of any real desire to improve anything. WDW management really does not want to invest in ANYTHING that is beholden to anyone.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> One of the treats was taking my group on 'Horizons' -- it was always a crowd pleaser, and I never heard anyone say 'Gee, that sucked.' << When taking Traditions I bet nobbody there saids anything sucks at WDW. Whether EPCOT Center or Epcot is better is strictly one's personal opinion. No amount of "you have no taste" statements will probably change anyone's mind. If Disney could afford constant updates, and replaceing old technology with new, I'm sure it would be a magnificent theme park. I still think it is today. I don't know how much it would cost to run an Epcot like Spirit envisions, versus an Epcot like we have today. It seems like Disney requires sponsorship for all of their themed pavilions,and rides. I just don't know if any of those sponsors are up for a major overhaul of their attraction every 5 years are so. That's the problem you get when you try to present a theme park like EPCOT Center was portrayed. Ultimately I think that's why it had to be revised in it's vision. Now you can call that being cheap if you want to, but nobody can deny that it still draws the crowds in. It's just not what some of you folks want. I still spend at least half of my time at Epcot when I visit WDW. However, I am from Texas, and can be easily amused.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<However, I am from Texas, and can be easily amused.>> I guess we Minnesotans are cut from the same cloth. We think its fun to drill a hole in the ice and fish through it. What can I say?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <>> Now, if they could only bulldoze the hat at MGM, << Rumors I've heard are that the hat is the new icon, and isn't going anywhere. it's more likely that the Grauman's facade behind it will disappear someday. < the special ( 2007 version ) for WDW in the travel channel I saw a few days ago explained it exactly that way. They said that the Studios still needed an icon ( while they showed the water tower and ToT ) - and so they constructed the hat to be just that ! I still have no issue with the hat except it's placement
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <""Yes I do. Seventy percent of WDW visitors are repeat visitors. They've likely been on it before."" Oooommmmmmmgggg, yea repeat visitors every 5-10 years maybe.< ' " also have 100,000 DVC families visiting 1-2 times per year - adding into the locals."
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I don't believe management are beholden to Joe. He was responsible for the newest park on the block and it needed attention. It has got it and more is potentially on the way. That is more about bolstering the park than simply giving Joe the money to plus his park. Ultimately he still had to go through his bosses too to get projects approved. WDW management also wanted projects that WDI didn't feel comfortable with for this park and on virtually every occasion WDI won that battle. I'm sure you can guess what projects those were. >> Perhaps, I didn't use the best language to get my point across (forgive me as I sit thru yet another gloomy SoFla summer day). I wasn't suggesting that Joe was somehow getting special treatment. There's no doubt that DAK is getting the money spent on it now because when it opened it really was no more than a four-hour park (six if you really savored the animal exhibits). It needed it. But it's also telling that the attractions added to DAK (DinoRama aside) have been of the highest quality you'll see at WDW. I think that comes from having a true creative visionary making choices from an artistic/storytelling/what will the guest like viewpoint instead of 'we need to get characters in Tomorrowland for the cheapest capital outlay, any ideas?' (although I could see Joe scaring a numbers-cruncher quite a bit as they suggest perhaps we should just use a projection of a Yeti instead of actually building one!!!) I'm quite happy with DAK, as I have since it opened. You won't find a complaint from me about the park at all (even DinoRama is OK by me) with the exception of no full serve dining. I reserve my complaints where they're richly deserved.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<This is the one removal that I never understood why people loved it though. WoM, the original Living Seas and Journey I totally get. >> I loved Horizons. I miss it. Still, my issue isn't that it was replaced with Mission Space. It's that Disney yet again took the cheap way out and built a simulator that they no way try and disguise as anything but and that's it ... you lose an immersive 20-minute attraction and get a very-lightly themed 2-3 minute thrill experience. If Horizons was replaced with a full on space pavilion you wouldn't hear a peep out of me.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<That's the problem you get when you try to present a theme park like EPCOT Center was portrayed. Ultimately I think that's why it had to be revised in it's vision. Now you can call that being cheap if you want to, but nobody can deny that it still draws the crowds in. It's just not what some of you folks want. I still spend at least half of my time at Epcot when I visit WDW.>> When EPCOT Center became Epcot (let's forget Epcot'94, Epcot '95 and Epcot '96) it was cheapened. I don't believe that companies need to dumb their products down and cut quality left and right just to 'compete' ... I find that talk to just be an excuse (usually but not exclusively) by the right side of our politicos for WalMarting things. People will pay for quality. They still pay a premium at WDW because they, ostensibly, are getting that kind of product. Now, I can make convincing arguments both ways as to whether that is true or not. But the fact is that in 1987, there was no debating what Disney quality was all about. <<However, I am from Texas, and can be easily amused.>> That explains so much ;-)
