Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<EXACTLY. The first and only totally unique Disney Park.>> Oh trust me DCA was totally unique!
Originally Posted By leobloom >> The first and only totally unique Disney Park. << Just curious, but why wouldn't Disneyland hold this designation?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The first time I visited Epcot I was VERY IMPRESSED by every single attraction. I even liked the rather goofy (but cool) "Hydrolators" at The Living Seas. I can't say that about any other Disney Park attraction lineup. Part of that was intentional on the part of Disney... the other parks all tried for a variety of A-D (and then E) ticket attractions where Epcot's Future World went for an E on every single one... and in my opinion succeeded. Some did not hold up as well after repeat experiences… there is only one time your mouth drops with awe as the theater in the Universe of Energy starts to break apart and move. But that FIRST time… WOW! Thank God there was no Internet back then or I would have been expecting it!
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Oh trust me DCA was totally unique!<<< And it was done in the wrong way. EPCOT was the first.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Just curious, but why wouldn't Disneyland hold this designation?<<< Because it used already existing characters and stories. EPCOT was totally devoid of things like that when it opened. It was a clear exhibition space.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> Because it used already existing characters and stories. << And Epcot didn't? Epcot used the "characters" and "stories" of history/science museums. And the World's Fair aspect was certainly not original.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>And Epcot didn't? Epcot used the "characters" and "stories" of history/science museums. And the World's Fair aspect was certainly not original.<<<< It used a World's Fair mold, of course, but that doesn't mean that, for Disney, it wasn't original. The ideas, concepts, and form, of course, do come from past exhibitions. But the PRESENTATION, the important part, was unlike anything else they had done.
Originally Posted By ChiMike To go back to RoadTrip's point.... I think the current roster at EPCOT was groundbreaking for it's place in the Disney theme park experience. There were problems that crept up as too many similar presentations aged equally. That is different from the idea that in 1987 EPCOT had a better roster of attractions than Disneyland in 1987. I would agree that it is hard to beat Disneyland post-1969, EuroDisney post-1995, and Tokyo DisneySea, especially now with some of the additions. However EPCOT Center roughly pre 1992 was something very special, very unique, and unlike what a person like Jim Hill might have you think, very creative. Without a doubt, Eisner would not have had the skill sets present within WDI for his future creations if they had not gone through the development process of the EPCOT Center attractions. There was a lot learned, and a lot of ground - broke. It also was somewhat of a hand-off from the old Walt-era mid level imagineers to the new Eisner era folks. So, I get what Leo says, but I think sometimes it is too easy to point out the warts of EPCOT Center... Especially, absolutely especially, in relation to the output of WDI over the last ten years.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>That is different from the idea that in 1987 EPCOT had a better roster of attractions than Disneyland in 1987.<< I would argue Disneyland '87 would be a better experience any day of the week.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 "My pathologically growing hatred and repulsion of all park things tooned is derived by the erosion of ideals and edutainment principles by the manifestation of juvenile indulgences by corporation synergy looking to increase a significant return on investment by milking the population of drones who want more IPR exposure. New Disney to me is like new coke. Difference is, I am one of the few who dislikes the overly sweet formula." Dave - you really, really, REALLY need to get your bum over to TDS! Forget the kids - they'll be too young to FULLY appreciate it yet anyway(and yeah, I know, I know they sit and drink wine with the grownups and all but seriously, they WILL NOT appreciate it yet, trust me!). You OWE IT to YOURSELF to get over there and see a FULLY realized environment that WDI funded by the bottomless pockets of the OLC can create!
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 "When I started this thread I suspected that it would go this way. The amount of negativity on the WDW boards is bewildering." Uuuuuuummmmmmm...........maybe that's telling you something?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo lol, but I have a policy that I do not travel anywhere without my children unless it is work related. We will get over.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I'm not down on all things Toon... I think some of more enjoyable attractions added recently have been Toon based. I enjoy Buzz and the Laugh Floor (really) at the MK. I enjoy Midway Mania at the Studios. I enjoy Nemo at Epcot and the Nemo show at the AK. I think Monsters Inc at DCA is a charming little darkride.... especially enjoy the "doors room". I just can't see Disney basing an ENTIRE LAND on one movie. I knew Harry Potter, Harry Potter was a friend of mine. Avatar, you're no Harry Potter.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<I knew Harry Potter, Harry Potter was a friend of mine. Avatar, you're no Harry Potter.>> I think this is the biggest problem that I see with the entire Avatar deal. Disney thinks this franchise is on a Harry Potter level. Now, I know popularity of franchises is often argued to death on Disney sites, so I'm not even going to get into it. But just compare the wealth of content in the Harry Potter Universe to Avatar. The former dwarfs the latter by a wide margin. Potter had seven main books, three companion books, and eight movies to draw a wealth of settings, merch, food, and theme from. There was so much content they didn't fit most of the great stuff from the books in and will be expanding. Avatar has one mediocre film (so far) to draw from and two sequels that are wild cards. It really is a head scratcher. Can anyone name a food from Avatar? A drink? Any interesting merchandise? Granted, I think the area could end up looking great and have some great rides, but I just don't see this acquisition being what they want it to be/think it will be. It really reminds me of their expectations for TRON: Legacy. Apparently they expected Avatar-like numbers from it, and when it failed to do that (even though it made a good chunk of change) they basically marked it as a failure.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Great point on Tron, Hokie! There is always a chance that the Avatar sequels could pan out like the Matrix sequels. Would not be good for AK.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<I knew Harry Potter, Harry Potter was a friend of mine. Avatar, you're no Harry Potter.>> exactly- it is no Harry Potter, It is no Star Wars-- heck it likely isn't even Star Trek. this is a serious overestimation of Avatar and it concerns me. I thought i was the only one who did not see it at the theatre, but heck, there were so many of us here that did not see it for one reason or another that should frighten Disney. Now that I have seen it on video- my response is Meh ! building a whole land for this is at least in my opinion a mistake of epic proportions- can anyone say Edsel.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 But what if your kids like it vb? Imagine your quandry then?!?! ----------------- I'm lucky both my kids do not like Avatar-- I totally dislikes- the other is indifferent. But yeah, I could see that would be a problem. I am just having a hard time determining where this huge fan base for Avataris- as I am a fan of Dr Who and Star Wars amd Lotr- so in tune with a lot of ci Fi fans and not one person I know is hooked to Avatar in the least ? Nowplenty of those same people do like Harry Potter- so I do nit think this is an age thing...
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I am a sci find geek and love avatar. But I do not think you have to be a fan of something to enjoy an attraction based on it. I hate winnie the pooh, but I want to ride the Tokyo attraction. I am no fan of Alice in wonderland, but enjoy the attractions based on it. And look at how many people enjoy the matterhorn but have never seen 3rd man on the Mountain.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> And look at how many people enjoy the matterhorn but have never seen 3rd man on the Mountain. << It's not really the same as Avatar and an attraction based on it. The real Matterhorn exists independent of the movie. And the bobsled ride requires no knowledge of the film to enjoy it. To fully "appreciate" an Avatar ride would require some familiarity with the intellectual property (same thing with Potter). But I take your point, too. I'm not a big fan of the other films you mentioned, but that doesn't inhibit my ability to enjoy those rides.
