Originally Posted By sir_cliff I did find more common ground with Greg on this article than I did on his last one. Like him, I am a little surprised Epcot has been as successful as it has and also think the concept behind the entire park doesn't quite gel at first glance. Every other Disney park has a distinct concept that can be understood just by the name, be it fantasy, movies, the environment, or California. Epcot, on the other hand, strings two seemingly unrelated areas together, has a name that's only really associated with the park itself and has one entire half which doesn't really fit its name in the imagination of most people. That said, I think there is some sort of infectious optimism about the park which has ended up hooking a lot of people (including myself) and also ties the place together somewhat cohesively. While the Future World pavillions don't individually fulfill my concepts of the future, put together they seem almost like a recipe for a positive future. World Showcase even makes sense to me in this way as the idea of nations peacefully coexisting is also essential to a positive future which ties the park together. While this is perhaps a little abstract, and certainly a more lot difficult to 'get' than your average theme park, it seems to work decently. I don't share his opinions about Spaceship Earth as I find it entertaining and mildly interesting (I'm not sure it teaches anything unknown to the average adult). He might be underestimating the average person as I don't think it's a dull experience, and I'm also one of the few who agrees with him that the ride was improved by the rehab a few years back. A problem I think Future World had was too many similar rides with a variation in theme. While there were a few twists as far as the ride vehicles were concerned, almost every attraction was a slow journey past a bunch of scenes depicting various elements of the theme discussed. I think Wonders Of Life was the first step in a positive direction as far as varying the experiences offered is concerned, and Test Track is also in that category for me. I must say, though, that while I enjoy Test Track there is a part of me which wonders whether this is the most significant lesson Disney could be giving on the theme of transport. It is an enjoyable ride and does help to lighten the mood and make Epcot's lessons a little more palatable, but I still have this nagging feeling that they could be doing more with the pavillion. I'm not sure Greg's idea of how Disney could be tackling various themes in one attraction would actually work, and the idea of a fun ride ending with a narrator's voice booming "That was a submarine ride of fantasy; here's how science makes a real nuclear submarine possible...," wouldn't work as you're making the entertainment stop to begin the lesson which, I assume, would leave everybody bored by the end. The aim is to make the lesson entertaining, which is something you don't seem to like Disney's attempts at. As with your suggestions that Disney seperate entertainment and education at AK, I feel you'd be leaving people a lot less satisfied than they currently are with a combination of the two. Overall, I think Epcot is moving in a positive direction. While Horizons was a fun attraction, it was dated and also yet another parade past show scenes. Mission:Space should inject some fun and interactivity with the thrill ride and interactive displays. Test Track also helped make a lesson more accessable and to help give Epcot a greater variety. I really think World Showcase needs more attention as there is very little variety over there to punctuate what at times can resemble a nicely-themed mall. My big suggestion at this point, though, would be for them to remove the damn Sorceror Mickey hand from Spaceship Earth! Talk about something making no sense in Future World and completely wrecking the mood!!! I'm a little troubled by Disney's increasing reliance on giant tacky icons which actually detract from what's already there.
Originally Posted By SJHYM The problem with opinon pieces is that it is just that an opinion. Greg has an opinion about EPCOT, I dont agree with that opinion at all but he certainly has one. The problem that I think EPCOT has is the same problem that Tomorrowland has always had. How do you keep the future in the future when the future becomes the past so quickly? The technology and story telling of multi-million dollar attractions quickly seem dated. The technology that made EPCOT cutting edge in 1982 now seems old. And how many times can a corporation dump millions of dollars into an attraction? When the attractions became too educational (look at Commicore, Astuture Computer Review, etc) people tended to stay away in droves. When the attractions look at something with a light hand, like World of Motion, the complaint it that it is too cute and not very educational. Its a terrible tension that I think Disney has managed well. Test Track is an interesting attraction. It is popular because of the high speed ride. But does it truly teach anymore than any other attraction? I dont think so. Is it a better themed ride? Yes, but not really anymore educational than other attractions. I would welcome more attractions that can incorporate great ride systems with an eductaional aspect but at tens of millions of dollars I dont hold out much hope. Corporate Sponsors have always had a major say in the way their attractions are created and built. So to say that an attraction is the way it is because of Disney is silly. Why do you think Imagination is getting another rehab so quickly? Because Kodak, who dropped alot of money into the rehab, is very very unhappy. Test Track? GM and Disney got into such a heated debate about the creation and execution of TT that GM was in the process of filing a lawsuit. A company expects that the money they give to Disney is going to either a) show off the company and its products (GM and its cars) b) Not directly show off its products but tie it to a feel good experience (Like Coke with the American Adventure). I think it is time for Disney to step up and build on the solid foundation that EPCOT is. For now though, I would be happy if Disney took the time and money and look at the current attractions (especially 20 yr old movies in World Showcase) and invest in EPCOT on some level.
Originally Posted By bhb007 I think "mrkthompsn" nails it on the head... "Today's Future World hardly reminds me of the future at all. Quite, frankly, it reminds me of work. I don't want to see work while I'm on vacation. I want to see work while I'm at work." Test Track felt as though I was watching people do a job, and not a terribly interesting one at that. When I think "E-Ticket" I want thrill, bombast, and a healthy dose of the fantastic. Test Track permits guests to be part of a research project. There's a reason why Disney never produced a television show called "True Life Adventures... IN QUALITY FEEDBACK!" LAME! LAME! LAME! Quite simply (judging from the Tommorowlands at all the Magic Kingdoms), Disney don't do the future no more... That's a shame, because I remember Disney's Imagineered (albeit idealistic) view of the future served quite well as the "Fantasyland" of little boys.
Originally Posted By fabdisbabe Test Track felt as though I was watching people do a job, and not a terribly interesting one at that. When I think "E-Ticket" I want thrill, bombast, and a healthy dose of the fantastic. Test Track permits guests to be part of a research project. There's a reason why Disney never produced a television show called "True Life Adventures... IN QUALITY FEEDBACK!" LAME! LAME! LAME! Quite simply (judging from the Tommorowlands at all the Magic Kingdoms), Disney don't do the future no more... That's a shame, because I remember Disney's Imagineered (albeit idealistic) view of the future served quite well as the "Fantasyland" of little boys.>> Ahem. And little girls, too. I love and miss EPCOT Center. Fab
Originally Posted By aquamoptop A point I am getting from some of the posters here is something i thought about when i read what the author said about Horizons not hitting the nail on the head as to what the future had in store for us compared to the "Home of the Future" >>I never really got into Horizons, and that shocks me because I was such a fan of all of Disney's futuristic visions, .....I have to say that the Home of Future Living got a lot more right than did Horizons: consumer electronics play a much more important part in our lives than do cities in outer space.) As his statement may be true I think the essence of our love for those "extinct" attractions was that it presented the future in a fun way that also entailed a lot of FANTASY. AAHH Yes remember that FANTASY. So Horizons was way off into the future but I think the FANTASY of it, the ideas that we could be living underwater or in space made it exciting. At least to me it did. Also the home of Future living focused on one aspect of the Future-Home. Horizons focused on everything. Some folks have talked here about not wanting to see 'work' when they are at the parks. Although I do like Test Track i do feel that if it werent for the sheer thrill of it, I mean if they presented it in a way that World of Motion was presented, it would be a failure. World of Motion, JII, Horizons, and Spaceship Earth, even though they deal with real subjects that are impotant and even though they educate the rider they also dealt with a little bit of FANTASY. Isnt FANTASY why we like Disney.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 I agree with aquamoptop -- they need to bring back some of that FANTASY into the Future World attractions. I personally wanted to live the Horizons future everytime I went on that ride -- cheesy jumpsuits and all!!! ;-) It just all looked so nice and wonderful - with everyone living in peace and harmony. Yeah, maybe it was a little unrealistic - but I'd rather see that than a Blade Runner or Terminator view of the future. And that's what I think is missing the most from Future World today - the Fantasy Future that Disney has always been so good at creating. But as someone else pointed out, I guess Disney doesn't really do the Future anymore.
Originally Posted By Daannzzz The future is to expensive to do.....you have to do it and then do it again 10 years later and so on...
Originally Posted By arstogas After 20 years, the American Adventure is the one attraction in all of Epcot that shows no sign of dating, and it's just as stirring (to most people, I would think) now as it was when it opened, if not more so. But you know what, if we tore it out and put in a Paul Revere Coaster, that would be a REAL improvement... Sheesh. I guess the reason that the Jim Hills and Greg Maletics of the world get a forum to post "opinions", is that the smart ones, with REALLY astute observations on the state of things, are too busy doing something significant, either in their own field or in their contributions to really substantive and fun entertainment (theme park-related or otherwise). But given the fact that the same plots of acreage have been available at Epcot, more or less untouched since 1986, why couldn't we have built ON to WoM, and made it a MEGA-attraction? Imagine, Test Track AND a wonderfully charming view of the history of transportation? Heck, I would have added the true "Future" thrill ride - Hovercity, where we take rides on lighter than air craft... Imagine having Space AND Horizons? There's certainly enough land... Space is occupying an even smaller footprint, it seems, than Horizons did. And what would the utlimate cost to Disney have been? They would have avoided the costs of demolition, which probably would have subsidized the salaries of extra CM's for quite a number of years, AND the crowds would have somewhere to disburse. I know the issues of HORIZONS' building structure problems, but I bet the money that was spent on demolition could have been spent on solving/reinforcing what was there. Imagine THIS Future World: ENERGY (someday it will inspire awe again, instead of chuckles) SPACE HORIZONS 2082 (updated) WORLD OF MOTION/TEST TRACK WONDERS OF LIFE/BODY WARS REDUX/CRANIUM COMMAND - PUBERTY HITS! FIGMENT'S JOURNEY INTO IMAGINATION INNOVENTIONS - w/ROBOTCITY THE LIVING SEAS/SONGS OF THE REEF & RACE TO THE CONTINENTAL SHELF WEATHERWATCHERS - STORMRIDER THE LAND - RAINFOREST TREASURES SPACESHIP EARTH 3000 Destroying attractions in a world class park, that has about 40 percent of its acreage EMPTY is a ridiculous waste of resources. Whoever advocated that is as shortsighted as the guy who invented New Coke.
Originally Posted By rannxerox My thoughts on the subject... * I don't think that EPCOT has to "teach" you anything. Some people might learn something, others might get a glimps into a possible future, while othere might be inspired. EPCOT can do all of these things plus, with more rides like Test Track and Mission to Mar, EPCOT can even thrill us. It has a little bit for everyone. *. Spaceship Earth: This is one of those rides that I think puts you in a mood more then it teaches anything, although with my 6 and 8 yos, I wisper to them as the ride progresses talking about the diffrent eras in time. The I think what SE does best is it ties all the eras together, the emotions rise until you are at the top of the geo-sphear, and then the tension decends to the end of the ride. I always come off that ride in a diffrent mood then with what I took in there with. * Test Track: This is one of those rides that I like to ride but I really do not care to learn anything about. I worked some quality control in the auto industry and I hated that job so maybe I am just tainted * I am old enough to have riden on Horizons but I never did. I think I would have loved that ride. I always loved the "ramp" ride end of Space Mt. when it was RCA. It made me want to live in a house like that. That is what I would like to see in EPCOT, some sort of future housing. You do not have to rip out the whole attraction if a few elements become obsolete, just change out those elements. I would love a pavilion (sp) that is as if you are on a space station. You would walk through tubes, see the living quarters, research facility, they can have some things that they are doing on the ISStation there, etc. This would be cool. Then you could have a "living on Mar" or the moon type of pavilion. You might be underground part of the time, in a dome part of the time, they could have some thril ride or such mixed with some educational stuff. * The world showcase seems to be doing alright on its own. Not sure if I learn anything there either (I hate watching films in a theme park, seems a waste of my park admission). JMO
Originally Posted By DC7800 I think I’m in the “understand your points (sort of), but disagree” group. I went through this article line by line, knowing I just had to respond, but initially thinking Greg and I couldn’t so much as agree if it was night or day out. Surprisingly, I found several places we totally agree: >>Many people find learning itself entertaining, and that's who Epcot should be tailoring itself to. For the many who don't, well, there are three other parks on the Walt Disney World property designed to keep them happy.<< Absolutely, Right on! Indeed, Future World traditionally has been tailored to just this group - just as it should. However, maybe I’m missing something here, but these two thoughts almost seem to contradict the remainder of Greg’s arguments. Also, regarding the column itself: >>If you find yourself hating it, just grit your teeth, convince yourself that it's good for you to be reading things that you don't agree with, and then let me know why you think I was so wrong.<< I’m not so sure about that - it really set my blood pressure boiling! Anyway, about why the piece was so wrong, I’ve hopefully addressed my two-cents worth below (about all it’s worth - and with the hopeful indulgence of all for the epic-novel length of my response).
Originally Posted By DC7800 Test Track does not represent a “healthful trend” in Future World, nor is it the “best“ attraction at Epcot (which is always a matter of opinion anyway. How can we ever objectively determine a “best“ anything when we all have differing opinions?); in fact, it was about the time Test Track appeared that FW began to noticeably deteriorate. That’s not because of TT (which is, in fact, an excellent ride - at least as far as it goes), but Test Track does have a few problems: it should never have been built in Epcot (at least as a stand-alone attraction), it is a thrill ride among a park which otherwise specializes in loftier, thought provoking, more sedate amusements, and as such it dramatically fails to provide the “pixie-dust” sense of wonder, magic, and amazement found in other FW attractions and which it’s predecessor, the World of Motion, had in abundance. The theme of Future World, obviously, is the future -and among all FW pavilions, Test Track provides the worst “fit” to the theme. This ride, and Greg’s Nuclear Submarine suggestion, both have excellent potential as WDW attractions - someplace else (Industrial World? Lousy title, but the concept is viable). Even the original JII at least hinted at the future, but beyond employment of advanced (“futuristic”) technology, TT instead points to the near-present of automotive testing. Again, a fascinating idea for an attraction, but in addition to being an anachronism TT fails to effectively represent the transportation industry in Epcot. The automobile (and GM) are but one small part of this story, told much more effectively by (love it or hate it) the old World of Motion. We can argue the entertainment value of this ride - or whether it was obsolescent - until the audio-animatronics come home, but it was far more encompassing to the transportation story than is Test Track. As an unpardonable sin for many, Test Track was also a thrill ride (and, I suspect, the root of much of the “TT haters“ phenomenon). While it is necessary to have something for everyone at any theme park, consider who the core audience is at Epcot. It’s not thrill seekers even now, because there are still only one and one-half (Body Wars) such rides there. However, the people who love the likes of Spaceship Earth, Horizons, and the original JII often are going to be a different group than those whose favorites are TT, Rock n’ Roller Coaster, and Space Mountain (of course, I’m speaking in very general terms - there will always be many exceptions, probably someone’s two favorites are RnR and Horizons. But, by and large, while you may like all of them, these attractions primarily appeal to different tastes). Epcot has become so popular (the third most visited park in the nation, even if the numbers dropped so much last year) by specializing in more sedate, thought-provoking, and loftier attractions. I’m sure many of you will agree with me that these original FW pavilions invoked a sense of wonder, fantasy, and awe that provide a far, far greater “thrill” experience than the fastest roller-coaster ever built. So, if your idea of what Epcot entails is based on Spaceship Earth, it’s hard to know what to make of Test Track. Future World is not everyone’s “cup of tea”, but then nothing in the world is (pun intentional). No apologies are necessary for this; as Greg also alludes to, if you don’t like Epcot there are three other parks to amuse you (and if you dislike FW, you‘ll likely find them preferable anyway). Besides, to satisfy Epcot critics, you would inevitably alienate the park’s traditional audience (note controversy from the loss of Horizons and the original JII). This does not, though, in any way preclude adding elements to Future World. For example, the pairing of Test Track with (not instead of) World of Motion could have made a winning combination, combining the story of transportation with a real-world application of the theme. However, I believe Greg is missing something intangible, yet critically important in his examination of Epcot. We fundamentally disagree on what Epcot is, what it was supposed to be, and what it’s true potential is. Strangely enough, the very areas Greg suggests as representative of Epcot’s potential (Innoventions and Universe of Energy) are the same attractions typically presented as among the park’s weaker experiences. If you want to know what Epcot is all about, or if your intention is to instill excitement in a new visitor, just look to Spaceship Earth. Far from turning people off or boring them, it shows just what a well-done, classic-style (dark) Disney attraction is all about. Granted, some people just don’t know what to make of it. Indeed, if you come to WDW as a first-time visitor with “Six-Flags” (or worse, county fair) ideas of what a theme park is (i.e., you’re expecting lots of fast coasters, water rides, etc) you will find very little to meet your expectations (those who assault the WDW parks “commando-style” have a similar problem at AK). Finally, Greg is quite correct that Test Track brings greater authenticity to Epcot - and therein lies an even deeper problem. WDW is not about authenticity - it’s about fantasy (even in AK). Specifically, Epcot (an Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow) is about (Walt) Disney’s Utopian vision of the future - and it’s this Disney magic - not reality - that provides a superior attraction experience; it’s the reason we go to WDW. The name (Walt’s name, and his dream, even if it was in a very different form than the theme park we know today) carries a precise meaning, one that explains what Epcot is, what is stands for, and where it’s supposed to be going. Granted, Disney of late does seem to be having it’s own problems realizing what Epcot represents, but not in 1982. Back then, Disney knew exactly what it was doing - and it was “indescribable”. Epcot in 1982 was what Tokyo DisneySeas is today, only arguably more impressive, and more magical. A “healthful trend” at Epcot today would, in fact, be a return to Epcot’s origins of “epic“ attractions - that which made the park the success it is today.
Originally Posted By gmaletic A lot of the posters on this discussion board are hitting the nail right on the head. Many here have cried "We want FANTASY from Epcot!", and I think that would be great. Where the problem comes from is that, more than any other Disney park, Epcot is supposed to be about reality. It's about the countries of the world, it's about science and technology. When I say Test Track is the right thing to be doing, I'm not saying that WDI should add thrill rides to Epcot. I'm saying that I think Epcot's obligation--at least based on what I perceive its mission to be--is to be a park about the "real world", and Test Track fits the bill better than the current slate of attractions. If we're willing to throw out the "real"-ness of Epcot, however, I couldn't agree more with the rest of the people on this discussion board. I love the "future fantasy" that Disney has given us. I just don't want it burdened too much by reality! Discoveryland in Disneyland Paris fires my imagination more than Horizons' tamer future visions ever did. Here's my perception: 1) Disney is better at delivering fantasy than any other company in the world 2) "Fantasy" is what Disney's customers want from it, more than anything. So given this situation, I think it's unfortunate that Disney is saddled with a "reality" themed park, when what it's really good at is fantasy. The reasoning behind today's situation is obvious: WDI wanted to deliver on Walt's dream for Epcot, and that's a very understandable impulse. Unfortunately, they didn't--Epcot as it stands isn't what Walt wanted--and, based on what I'm seeing on this board, it isn't precisely what any of us wanted to see, either, despite some of the really cool and beautiful things that exist there. Imagine if Epcot didn't exist, and Disney instead built a park that really delivered on the theme of "Future World." Each land tailored to a different version of the future. No thrill rides, just incredible architecture and landscaping. (Unfortunately, probably a few too many gift shops thrown in, too!) Imagine the first half of "Horizons", but as an entire park! Or, think of Disneyland Paris's Discoveryland, extended to be an entire park! Now there's something that plays to Disney's strengths admirably, and something I'd be excited about!
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "No thrill rides, just incredible architecture and landscaping." You know, I've always felt that Future World could really benifit from extending the theme outside of the pavillions -- and really theming the area to a "Future World". It's too bad they didn't go for a futuristic city approach - with people movers and such scattered around the place. Could you imagine a futuristic "Main Street" with the Geosphere at the Hub instead of the castle. (Of course, you would have to abandon reality and go for a more fantastical future approach, but the "architecture from the Horizons future would do quite nicely!!) If I had the money and the power, I would totally change the architecture and layout of Future World - extending into the parking lot and adding a "city" feel to the place. (Basically I'm talking about completly re-Imagineering Future World - rides and all.) Granted, it would take a fortune, but wouldn't it be great!! ;-)
Originally Posted By aquamoptop >>Even the original JII at least hinted at the future, but beyond employment of advanced (“futuristic”) technology, TT instead points to the near-present of automotive testing. << That, I agree with. >>Epcot is supposed to be about reality.<< Since when is predicting the future have anything to do with REALITY??? Reality is what is right in front of you, the present, what is already proven. When I refer to Fantasy I am saying that they used a BIT of FANTASY to show what the future of each area would be like. Yes, there are some predictions that are so close to happening that they are 'reality' But the cool thing about EPCOT yesteryear was seeing far into the future and imagining that it could happen. Whether it does or not makes no difference, it was just fun and entertaining.IMO
Originally Posted By arstogas Greg contends in his latest attempt at a quick save that: "Epcot is supposed to be about reality." No. Wrong. Aquamoptop got it right with this: "Since when is predicting the future have anything to do with REALITY??? Reality is what is right in front of you, the present, what is already proven." Exactly. EPCOT Center WAS PRECISELY what I wanted, when it was new, because THEN, it was about the future, about CONJECTURE, a dreamy, wondrous "What If?" There is NOTHING "real" about "what if". She/he later noted: "the cool thing about EPCOT yesteryear was seeing far into the future and imagining that it could happen. Whether it does or not makes no difference, it was just fun and entertaining." And that's precisely what we want NOW. We don't want to see how GM tests cars now... I want to see what their best minds dream up for us ten years, twenty years from now. When EC opened, EVERY attraction had one foot or a few toes in the past, a few other toes in the present, and leapt forward into a tantalizing vision of the future. Imagination's ride was wonderful, because it was so out of left field, and explored in both the abstract and the concrete, sort of a transliteration of the process of thought, inspiration and creation. The "Magic Journeys" 3-D movie was wonderfully dreamy and stimulating, even kind of sad... but it made you feel something. IMAGEWORKS in 1982 was ahead of its time and fun... goofy and whimsical and full of things we couldn't do anywhere else. THE LAND was showing us the future of how to use our resources, TLS was showing us great potential for mining information about the oceans and their denizens, and giving us a few minutes at a futuristic sea base. I don't want a TRADE SHOW, Greg. Your definitions of fantasy and reality are too simplistic, too literal. You still don't get it, as apparently Eisner doesn't... Once upon a time there WAS, believe it or not, a vision for Epcot: a showcase for the near and far-term dreams of tomorrow, and a community of nations representing the hope for a future world of greater mutual understanding. Nothing about that has to do with today's reality, save as a leaping off point... and you never linger long on a diving board. TEST TRACK is ALL diving board, and no pool to swim in.
Originally Posted By DC7800 arstogas, >>EPCOT Center WAS PRECISELY what I wanted, when it was new, because THEN, it was about the future, about CONJECTURE, a dreamy, wondrous "What If?" << I couldn't agree more! Thank You! >>Your definitions of fantasy and reality are too simplistic, too literal. You still don't get it, as apparently Eisner doesn't...<< Again, well said. And that, apparently, is exactly the problem. But within Disney not just Eisner, I suspect, lacks the vision necessary for the Epcot Center we remember.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA I really miss EPCOT Center -- before these posts, I thought I was one of the only people who 'got it' and enjoyed it. Thanks all!
Originally Posted By SJHYM Jim, I am with you. I was driving the other day and saw and original EPCOT Center License Plate that the park sold. All I could say was...aaaaaahhhhhh, EPCOT Center
Originally Posted By JenniBarra My husband's theory is that, if part of the people say Epcot is too educational and half of the people say that Epcot isn't educational enough, then Disney probably did a good job. I think it's always going to be a challenge when creating "infotainment" to please *everyone*. Anyhow, I've always really enjoyed Epcot...
