Originally Posted By mstaft I've been to WDW eight times since the opening of Epcot. Only on this last visit (late August) was the parking lot not totally full.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Precedents: In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Did you know Epcot Future World pavilions have contracts with the sponsors which allow the sponsors to re-invest and modify their pavilion on an X-number of year basis depending on the contract? That contract system is based on the "Tomorrowland problem." The problem is that anything involving the future will stagnate and look outdated unless modified to fit current ideas every so often? It's a lesson they learned from Tomorrowland the hard way. Thus, when Future World was conceived, they set a precedent that would keep the pavilions fresh and not outdated. The only change at Epcot that was not on schedule was the first change of SSE. That was an artistic change, and for good reason. The first narration was too dry and boring with an anti-climatic finale. That's why it's the only big change that fits in such a small timeline - much like how DCA is changing in such a short period. Other parts of the park remains entirely untouched until about 94 - right on cue 10 years. In fact, many of Epcot's changes have been a little late in coming. They (Disney) felt the park could stretch the lifespan of several attractions. Oh, and there's Imagination. Its sudden re-do after the second version points back to a DCA-style problem. Same general design team though, so it's pretty easy to point the finger. Look! There's the cancer, lets cut it out. Problem being, some folks egos aren't letting them be cut out.
Originally Posted By jonvn "In common law legal systems" Thanks. Did you look that up in google? It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. "Did you know Epcot Future World pavilions have contracts with the sponsors which allow the sponsors to re-invest and modify their pavilion on an X-number of year basis depending on the contract? " That's nice. "when Future World was conceived, they set a precedent " You mean...it was UNPRECEDENTED! "The only change at Epcot that was not on schedule was the first change of SSE. That was an artistic change, and for good reason. The first narration was too dry and boring with an anti-climatic finale. " You mean...it was UNPRECEDENTED! "Other parts of the park remains entirely untouched until about 94 - right on cue 10 years." Gee, about as long as it will take DCA to get these changes. Hmmm. You mean...it is not UNPRECEDENTED? Give it a rest, folks. Even Mousermerf who knows epcot inside and out is pointing out what I am talking about, even if he doesn't realize it.
Originally Posted By magnet ha, ha Jonvn. You are too much fun. I love seeing you turn the tables on this stuff. I don't agree with you, but that's OK. We don't have to agree.
Originally Posted By jkayjs <<But to answer your question, that picture simply could have been taken before they opened the gates. That's probably what that picture is>> As a matter of fact it is plain in that picture that the gates had been opened. Not recognizing this makes me curious about the deapth of true knowledge that is present. So I'll take my leave.
Originally Posted By jonvn Then maybe it was like 1 minute after the gates were opened, so people had started streaming in? Why wouldn't that be possible?
Originally Posted By jonnyrzone420 I started this post to discuss the possibility about new gates in WDW. Can somebody please explain why it has become a name-calling bash about which park is better? Every park is great in their own way, no one should have to come on here and defend which park they think is a great and get ridiculed by someone else because they think their favorite park is better. These posts are about your support for disney, not about proving points. And before everyone breaks this post down piece by piece, examines it, and then questions me, know this is not aimed at anyone in particular. Simply my frustration about how this particular topic has been handled.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ^^Sorry, but as a newbie I've gotta tell you that if you expect threads to stay ontopic, you've come to the wrong place. We have very spirited discussions here in the LP, for the most part quite civil, but you can't force a topic/discussion to travel the route you have plotted. My threads derail more often than Amtrak. Just life. FWIW, I love going back and forth with Jon (even if I'm convinced he secretly is Al Lutz). Since I agree with him on so many of the big issues, I love inane debate about smaller things ... especially since he's right about as often as our Prez. Besides, your thread was about a fifth WDW park. And I hope by now we've established that won't be happening for a very, very, long time if at all.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Oh and Jon, the EC lot filled up on Day 1 and many times after. I believe it was the 1984-86 period when the lot was expanded. I was also reminded tonight, by a lurker here, that the Disney-MGM Studios lot also had a few thousand spaces added a few years after opening.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Then i think we should create a new topic>> My point is simply that no matter how mant topics you create, you can't control the direction they take. This is just like a discussion in the real world. You start talking about one thing and wind up a universe away.
Originally Posted By jonnyrzone420 spirit, you would probably know this. There was a show at Epcot in the early 90's which featured mickey in a silver suit fighting a large robotic dinosaur looking monster that came from behind some trees in the future world east area. what was that?
Originally Posted By jonvn No, I'm not wrong. Now, the parking lot thing? Eh. I'd have to go find where I first heard about this, but I do definitely recall reading this. I often can no longer remember sources for things, so perhaps I got this messed up. I'l just let that one go. "why it has become a name-calling bash about which park is better?" Who is arguing about which park is better? Of course Epcot is a better park.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I'm convinced he secretly is Al Lutz" What did I ever do to you? But, no. Actually, we used to agree on a lot of things, but then he started on a crusade to personally destroy people, and then got more and more angry and hysterical as I refused to go along with it. I also didn't feel it necessary to be so nasty about the place. I stopped going so much and it made it all a lot better.
Originally Posted By dshyates If you look at this image you can clearly see the added lot on the right. <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=epcot&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&ll=28.379177" target="_blank">http://maps.google.com/maps?q= epcot&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&ll=28.379177</a>,-81.54837&spn=0.006155,0.009892&t=h&z=17&om=1
