Originally Posted By leemac <<As someone who visits all five MK parks regularly, you must see how homogenized, how dumbed down, how bland the Florida park is.>> I must admit I honestly don't feel this. I have always found the MK format to be the weakest overall (and that includes the Concrete Kingdom AKA TDL) but there is still a degree of uniqueness to the park. I don't particularly care for SGE! and Laugh Floor but they are two recent changes that are unique to this park. There are parts I like (Liberty Square and the main Avenue into TL for example) and parts I dislike (the entire of Fantasyland for a start and Mickey's Birthdayland). I find the other three parks more compelling (even D-MGM where I still love watching the streetmosphere) and therefore spend more time there. I certainly don't have the time to go into it now but I do 100% disagree with your assessment of Epcot. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that in that park's case it was the guest that lost faith in the original ethos and message of the park - and not WDW or WDI. It no longer resonated with the average guest - and who can blame them? It felt like an overly-plussed Smithsonian (and this from someone that has always loved Epcot as his favorite park and it still can be at times though). Marty recently told me that he was very surprised that the original concept became stale so quickly. The park barely squeaked into its second decade when the guests began to vote with their feet.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "Marty recently told me that he was very surprised that the original concept became stale so quickly." This is just something I don't get -- I would have thought that it wasn't so much EPCOT's "concept" that was stale, but the "content". How can the concept of presenting an upbeat vision of the future grow stale?? what grows stale is the execution of the concept - especially when the future catches up with you. EPCOT never needed to stray from its original concept - it just needed an upgrade in its content. Think about it - it wasn't changing the name from EPCOT Center to Epcot that brought in the crowds, it was adding new experiences and attractions. They could easily have left the EPCOT Center theme in place and added new and exciting attractions and I'm sure the outcome would have been the same.
Originally Posted By leemac I think the point is that after spending a fortune building the park you would expect the content to last longer than a decade. I also don't see how Epcot was about "presenting an upbeat vision of the future" - virtually all of World Showcase was historic and a big part of Future World such as World of Motion, Spaceship Earth and Universe of Energy spent longer presenting the past than debating the future. The future gets stale very quickly - at least WDW got that right at the time.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The future gets stale very quickly < one needs look no further than tomorrowland, going back lots of years. almost safer with a 'set' view for tomorrowland - a vision from the past etc...
Originally Posted By MPierce >> There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that in that park's case it was the guest that lost faith in the original ethos and message of the park - and not WDW or WDI. It no longer resonated with the average guest - and who can blame them? It felt like an overly-plussed Smithsonian << I think that pretty much sums it up. I heard way to many people say they found Epcot boring. You certainly can't blame Disney for trying to give the guest what they want. >> I think the point is that after spending a fortune building the park you would expect the content to last longer than a decade. I also don't see how Epcot was about "presenting an upbeat vision of the future" - virtually all of World Showcase was historic and a big part of Future World such as World of Motion, Spaceship Earth and Universe of Energy spent longer presenting the past than debating the future. The future gets stale very quickly - at least WDW got that right at the time. << I never could understand why people looked at Epcot as a Park filled with hope for tomorrow. As Lee pointed out there's more about the past there than the future. I think they would be better served with constantly updating innoventions. Let that be the showcase for the future.
Originally Posted By bayrr326 <<I'd rather bash Phil for what is under his control. From dirty restrooms to burned out lightbulbs to filthy queues to inoperable effects on major attractions to turning the MK into a generic Disney character park.>> Well, I was there last night. BTW, we had crazy thunderstorms yesterday afternoon apparently bad enough that alot of people left the park because it was no where near as busy as I thought it would be the week of July 4th. And the Express monorail line was down when we got there around 7. Which I have never seen before. But back to my point. Not to stray too far off topic but do they not sweep the Q's anymore during the day? I have noticed more and more since I moved here last year that by the end of the day there is trash all over the lines. The Buzz Lightyear Q was nasty. Trash all over the place. And it still looks as run down, with paint peeled off and just dingy looking. Even the Monsters Inc Q which was relatively clean but had soda bottles strewn everywhere. Do the cast member not pick these up? Off topic, it was the first time I saw Monsters and it was cute and funny but it should have been put in at the Studios not Tomorrowland. As far as Space goes, replacing a few pieces of track is just not gonna cut it. The whole ride is bumpy as hell.
Originally Posted By bayrr326 <<Frankly, if Space Mountain needs to close for six months next year, that inf should already be on Disney.com ... instead they're still likely battling over how many dollars they can cut from the project.>> I remember that in the late 80's or early 90s getting the Birnbaum Guide and it actually had listed in it that SM would be closed during specific dates for like 6 months. I think this may have been the last major rehab it had. But the point is that it was planned enough in advance that they could print it in a travel guide.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I must admit I honestly don't feel this. I have always found the MK format to be the weakest overall (and that includes the Concrete Kingdom AKA TDL)>> I feel differently, but the fact remains if not for the first MK ... nothing like Epcot or DAK would have been built. The MK-style park is the quintessential Disney theme park experience. Always has been. Always will be. <<but there is still a degree of uniqueness to the park. I don't particularly care for SGE! and Laugh Floor but they are two recent changes that are unique to this park.>> Yes. And they're so awful they'll stay in Florida! <<There are parts I like (Liberty Square and the main Avenue into TL for example)>> I like LS too. Or what's left of it. The LTT is still my fave place for a MK meal, which likely means they'll go all character. I do miss all the unique shops that were combined into one giant Christmas Disney character shop (I'd love to read the WDI backstory to that change!). And I miss the HoP when it wasn't a partisan attraction, but an American one. But I still agree with you! <<and parts I dislike (the entire of Fantasyland for a start and Mickey's Birthdayland).>> Hate 'em. <<I find the other three parks more compelling (even D-MGM where I still love watching the streetmosphere) and therefore spend more time there.>> I would have placed the Studios below MK for the longest time. But not anymore. Just being there for ToT and dinner at Brown Derby place it higher than MK for me now. Can you believe how much I am agreeing with you Lee? Must be the humidity has fried my brain! ;-) <<I certainly don't have the time to go into it now but I do 100% disagree with your assessment of Epcot. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that in that park's case it was the guest that lost faith in the original ethos and message of the park - and not WDW or WDI. It no longer resonated with the average guest - and who can blame them? It felt like an overly-plussed Smithsonian (and this from someone that has always loved Epcot as his favorite park and it still can be at times though). Marty recently told me that he was very surprised that the original concept became stale so quickly. The park barely squeaked into its second decade when the guests began to vote with their feet.>> I'll just say what I've said before as I think it's a chicken and egg question. There's no doubt that by the early-mid 90s, a large portion of Epcot guests weren't thrilled with the offerings. However, it's also true that other than WoL, Disney stopped investing in the park and it didn't update or plus a single attraction until the 1994-96 period. For a park like Epcot 'a permanent World's Fair', that was a huge mistake. The next mistake was going in without a plan and doing things piecemeal. I also don't think throwing a massive dose of characters in was the smartest strategies. Even the Nemo overlay on the Seas, while nice, isn't nearly what some of the other concepts WDI came up with would have been ... all it is is cheaper.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<The future gets stale very quickly - at least WDW got that right at the time.>> Sure, but that was a lesson Disney learned back when Walt was still amongst us spirits. They knew FW was going to need continual updating/plussing. They just decided to not do any until the numbers went waaay down ... then they decided that two-minute thrill rides were the answer.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Not to stray too far off topic but do they not sweep the Q's anymore during the day? I have noticed more and more since I moved here last year that by the end of the day there is trash all over the lines. The Buzz Lightyear Q was nasty. Trash all over the place. And it still looks as run down, with paint peeled off and just dingy looking. Even the Monsters Inc Q which was relatively clean but had soda bottles strewn everywhere. Do the cast member not pick these up?>> I can't recall the last time I encountered a custodial CM in a queue at WDW. I still see them all the time at DL. Likely, why DL never seems as dirty as the MK does. And Buzz is one of the dirtiest, worst-maintained of the bunch. From the garbage in the floors, to the holes in the walls, to the dirty ride vehicles, just an all around mess.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>Marty recently told me that he was very surprised that the original concept became stale so quickly. The park barely squeaked into its second decade when the guests began to vote with their feet.<<< Next time I have a conversation with Marty, this will be the first thing I bring up. I want to hear him clarify and crystallize his thoughts on the park.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "I also don't see how Epcot was about "presenting an upbeat vision of the future" - virtually all of World Showcase was historic and a big part of Future World such as World of Motion, Spaceship Earth and Universe of Energy spent longer presenting the past than debating the future." I guess you could look at it that way, but I always saw the history portions of the attractions as a means to an end -- we looked into our past first to be reminded of how we got to where we are now, and then we glimpsed into our future. The rides each told a complete story of their chosen topic - from the past, to the present and then to the future. Not all of them in that exact straightforward form like World of Motion or Energy, but those concepts were in basically all of the original pavilions - except Imagination, which was a different topic entirely. Plus, all of the post-show areas and Communicore spoke directly to the Future – some of those areas were even more extensive than the history attraction that preceded it. The World Showcase followed the same model - a look into the past of each country, as well as a look at the present. The future-aspect really came from the World Showcase as a whole - it represented an international community of nations all existing in peace and harmony -- an ideal that we haven't been able to achieve yet. So while each country may not be futuristic – World Showcase taken as a whole certainly was. For me, EPCOT Center had one of the most unified and complete concepts ever conceived for a theme park, and it really affected me greatly growing up. (It’s one of the reasons I become an engineer!!) A day at the original EPCOT Center was almost a religious experience for me, and I never failed to feel uplifted and optimistic about our future after visiting. Today's Epcot has lost that cohesiveness - while it might be a fun place to visit, it lacks that special something that made EPCOT Center so much more than just a day at an amusement park.
Originally Posted By Mr X I couldn't put my finger on why Lee's comment didn't feel "right" to me (on the surface, it makes perfect sense), but plpeters just explained it to a "T". I definitely felt that Epcot was a far-reaching, "visionary" sort of place, and that's why. However, I also agree with Lee that it got stale quick. There's nothing you can do about that short of making the commitment to keep the place updated CONSTANTLY. Now, if they'd done that and people still didn't show up, it would have been a huge error...but sadly we'll never know if that sort of commitment would have worked out. *sigh* I do agree that the "concept" never became stale at all, just the content.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>I couldn't put my finger on why Lee's comment didn't feel "right" to me (on the surface, it makes perfect sense), but plpeters just explained it to a "T".<<< Completely agreed. With no insult to Leemac intended, I do get the impression that maybe he was pretty young in EPCOT Center's heyday, and might not have more than an archival reference for how it really worked and impacted the guest. It was VERY much an upbeat look at the future, in FW, WS and especially as a whole. The concept is still very valid as a theme, it just needs to be taken seriously and addressed with fresh hearts of real conviction and ingenuity.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>The concept is still very valid as a theme, it just needs to be taken seriously and addressed with fresh hearts of real conviction and ingenuity.<<< I don't really see that ever happening, considering the direction they've chosen (test track, soaring, mission space, proposed Spaceship Earth coaster of some sort) and the fact that it appears to be "successful" at least from a revenue point of view. They've basically turned Epcot into the "appeal to teens and thrill seekers" park, in a weird way, and they fully intended to right from the beginnings of the "test track" revolution. But, we do have our memories. *sigh*
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror It's not a tough thing to do, if the will and vision exists. TEST TRACK can easily support a re-conceiving of show. It could be more forward thinking. Ditch the whole "here's how we build and test a car" and find a new story that envisions the future of cars, their fuels, and where they go. Soarin' - well, we're waiting on a new movie anyway, so... How about "Soarin' over the Rainforests?" or at least something that encourages conservation of our resources? MISSION: Space is the easiest fix. You simply build the rest of the pavillion. The thrill ride becomes ONE way to Mars. The rest of the pavillion, a couple of acres worth, becomes MARS. That alone, for a lot of kids, would be cooler than ANYTHING at HarryPotterland, if it was done well. And the Spaceship Earth Coaster isn't happening, thankfully. I'm not trying to be argumentative here. What I'm trying to paint is the complete and utter simplicity with which what's been DONE can complement a bolder vision. If the right minds were freed to pursue such.
Originally Posted By leemac <<However, it's also true that other than WoL, Disney stopped investing in the park and it didn't update or plus a single attraction until the 1994-96 period.>> That is the point though. Throughout the '80s post-opening attractions included Horizons, Journey (albeit only a handful of months late and considering the problems with its gestation I'm amazed they opened it so soon), Living Seas, Norway, Morocco. Granted that list isn't as comprehensive as WDW or WDI wanted it to be but that is still a huge investment (The Living Seas was a huge cost even with UTC defraying a portion of the costs and providing some of the underlying technology). The park is probably fatally flawed in that respect. It would have always needed a huge investment to keep it fresh and up to date.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Not all of them in that exact straightforward form like World of Motion or Energy, but those concepts were in basically all of the original pavilions - except Imagination, which was a different topic entirely. Plus, all of the post-show areas and Communicore spoke directly to the Future – some of those areas were even more extensive than the history attraction that preceded it.>> I can understand how you can reach that conclusion. However I do fundamentally believe that the pace of innovation is now so quick that it is virtually impossible for Epcot to keep up. The Sperry exhibit remained relevant for a considerable time as home computers and robotics barely existed in the eyes of the average guest. The access we have to information now is the real problem that all museums and places like Epcot really come up against when trying to present a vision of the future. Someone raises a question and we can Google it on our BlackBerrys and iPhones. My take is that exhibits like the new Project Tomorrow (which will be like the old Epcot when it opens in January '08), Fantastic Plastic Works and Where's the Fire? (my personal favorite in Epcot) at Innoventions are the way forward for the park. Don't go for the 35,000 feet-view of the world but show how innovation does affect our daily lives whether we know it or not (or whether we need it to or not). The real quandary is whether to make your future based in fact or fiction. A significant portion of the original Epcot wasn't really grounded in any true science. Transcenter was a perfect example where you marvelled at the futuristic shapes of cars "to come" but it just wasn't realistic. I've no idea what guests would prefer on that front. For me personally I would rather see a prediction of the future that is entirely grounded in science and technology but that is where my learning has always come from.
Originally Posted By leemac <<It's not a tough thing to do, if the will and vision exists.>> I don't think anyone doubts that. The problem is if it is executed will it have a commercial effect. There just isn't the stomach within the Company to sink $100-200m into a gamble and who can blame them? WDW is a tourist destination first and foremost. Educating the masses isn't the brief of Epcot any more. I'd still like to see a hybrid of education and entertainment but it seems WDW guests want more Tower of Terrors, Everest etc. But if you never try you never know if you can change that perception that much is clear. I was a kid when Epcot opened. I've a terrible memory but I do recall those early trips with a lot of fondness. My love for the parks (and Disney is by and large still about the parks for me) stemmed from those experiences. Epcot drove and fueled those desires.
Originally Posted By leemac <<They've basically turned Epcot into the "appeal to teens and thrill seekers" park, in a weird way, and they fully intended to right from the beginnings of the "test track" revolution.>> The Space Mountain thread really has gone of the rails so I might as well continue.. I totally disagree with this. Test Track is a family ride. The thrills aren't kid-unfriendly and it remains a pseudo-educational experience (even if you don't agree with the conceit). The Seas with Nemo & Friends was an attempt to make a pavilion relevant again. Overlaying Nemo didn't just give a reason for bringing back the seacabs but it also makes the educational experiences more digestible by kids. It has injected a new lease of life in a pavilion that I can tell you WDW management wanted to close. Soarin' was the only real attempt to capitalize on an attraction that is hugely popular (and it still ranks number 1 at WDW in guest surveys). Mission:SPACE's brief did shift from the original conceit but a lot of that was down to the sponsor. That one probably was too intense in its original presentation.
