its finaly comming down

[paulh]

micky hand at epcot:cool1: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/custom/tourism/orl-bk-epcot070507,0,46286.story?coll=orl_tab01_layout
Paulh

[raidermatt]

This is the new definition of addition by subtraction.

[paulh]

next they might doff the hat
Paulh

[WebmasterCricket]

Well, how will I know when I'm in EPCOT now?

[DisOrBust]

Amen. i'm sure we can all buy a piece off the nearest cart.

[OKW Lover]

Its about time! :cool1:

Now if they would get rid of the graveyard there and the BAH at the Studio.

[EUROPACL]

Well, how will I know when I'm in EPCOT now?

This is just like a Jeff Foworthy joke...

...easy, if you just spent 60 bucks, waited 2 hours to ride a ski lift chair above California and if you're in the middle of a gran mal seizures due to a ride on Mission Space....then Yep you're in Epcot

[Luv2Roam]

party:

[CanadianGuy]

Amen.. I understand the 'deconstruction' is to start July 9th.

And not a minute too soon!

Knox

[Luv2Roam]

Now if only the tombstones in front of SE could come down too. But that won't happen....

[crazy4wdw]

I'm ecstatic that its coming down! Maybe there's hope that the sorcerer's hat at Disney/MGM Studios will be removed at some point in the near future.

:jumping1:

[littlebigdog]

Woo Hoo!!!! That's the best news of the day!

[crazy4wdw]

Critics sure to find Epcot's decision on sign wand-erful
Scott Powers | Sentinel Staff Writer
July 6, 2007

The mighty hand of Mickey that has towered over Epcot's signature attraction for nearly eight years is coming down.

Epcot Vice President Jim MacPhee said Thursday that the time has come to remove the Mickey Mouse arm, glove and wand that have served as a colorful, lighted Epcot sign -- and as a lightning rod for criticism from many longtime Epcot fans.

Installed in 1999, the 257-foot-tall appendage can be seen for miles around the Walt Disney World property, appearing to lean on Epcot's iconic structure, the Spaceship Earth pavilion, a 180-foot-tall geodesic sphere.

The dismantling of the 50-ton wand-waving tower begins Monday and should be completed shortly before Epcot's 25th anniversary Oct. 1. Also coming down are the colored stars splashed across Spaceship Earth's roof.

Disney officials maintain that Epcot visitors love the flashy sign and that Mickey Mouse's arm has helped foster a family-friendly image. MacPhee said the wand was a popular symbol that served the park well.

Spaceship Earth will close Monday for five months to complete an updating and overhaul of the ride, which is now sponsored by Siemens AG.

Considering that project, and Epcot's 25th anniversary this fall, MacPhee said, "We think the timing of the removal is right."

Many of Disney's more-critical observers have called for the arm's removal for several years. Independent Disney-forum Web logs such as TheDisneyBlog, MiceAge, Re-imagineering and EpcotCentral have criticized it as tacky. John Frost, editor of TheDisneyBlog, called it "clutter."

Epcot about 'futurism'

"Epcot in its original form from 1982 was about futurism, hope and optimism, and the wand and hand speak instead to the company's cartoon history," said Orlando author Kevin Yee, who writes about Disney in books and Internet postings, including on his own UltimateOrlando blog. "I think Disney knows that removing the wand will please its hard-core fans."

The giant structure, which went up for Walt Disney World's 2000 millennium celebration, initially featured the numerals "2000." When the millennium promotion ended, the word "Epcot" replaced the number "2000," and the arm and wand became symbols of the next campaign, "100 Years of Magic," commemorating Walt Disney's 100th birthday.

Publicly, Disney officials never said much about the wand's long-term prospects. Even as the tower was being constructed, George Kalogridis, then Epcot's vice president, when asked whether it were permanent, said, "We're not sure." As recently as April, a Disney spokeswoman declined to discuss the sign's future.

Another enduring Epcot project that dates from Disney's millennium celebration, "Leave a Legacy," already has closed, though its imprint will stay.

The "Legacy" exhibit features dozens of granite slabs installed between Epcot's entrance turnstiles and Spaceship Earth. Since 1999, thousands of visitors have paid to have their pictures laser-etched onto steel plates mounted on the slabs. But the "Leave a Legacy" sales office closed in June, MacPhee said.

Towering over Disney

When the wand tower went up, it became the tallest structure in any of Walt Disney World's four theme parks. Once it comes down, the tallest theme-park structure, according to Orlando Sentinel research, will be the top of the Tower of Terror attraction at Disney-MGM Studios, at 199 feet. The new Expedition Everest mountain in Animal Kingdom also might qualify; Disney has released its height only as "just under 200 feet." The tallest point in the Magic Kingdom is Cinderella Castle, at 180 feet.

The wand tower is not the only controversial Walt Disney World symbol that is relatively new. The Mickey Mouse Sorcerer's Hat at Disney-MGM Studios, installed in 2001 and considered popular by many guests, has also been denigrated by many of the same critics of Epcot's wand tower.

When asked about the wand's removal, for example, Mike Scopa, a writer for the MousePlanet blog, said he welcomed the news, then added, "Now if they can only get rid of that sorcerer's hat."

Richard Tribou of the Sentinel staff contributed to this report. Scott Powers can be reached at spowers@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5441.

[EUROPACL]

Many of Disney's more-critical observers have called for the arm's removal for several years. Independent Disney-forum Web logs such as TheDisneyBlog, MiceAge, Re-imagineering and EpcotCentral have criticized it as tacky. John Frost, editor of TheDisneyBlog, called it "clutter."

Looks like somebody didn't get their payment in on time....no love for the Disboards.com

[MarkRG]

*shrug* Guess I'm the only one who liked it, and am sorry to see it go. I really thought it brought a little of Disney into the one park where it was sorely lacking.

Now.. the graveyard on the other hand..... :lmao:

[EUROPACL]

*shrug* Guess I'm the only one who liked it, and am sorry to see it go. I really thought it brought a little of Disney into the one park where it was sorely lacking.


There is the Eisner legacy. Thanks to him...giant tacky oversized icons have become "Disney"

[ChrisFL]

*shrug* Guess I'm the only one who liked it, and am sorry to see it go. I really thought it brought a little of Disney into the one park where it was sorely lacking.

If by "Disney" you mean cartoons, then, ok slightly....but Epcot, even the city plan of Walt himself had nothing to do with cartoon characters...the Imagineers decided to go the same direction, leaving that to MK

But to call it less "Disney" because there aren't Mickey & Co. running around is inaccurate at best. Walt had many more things he did that had nothing to do with cartoons.

[MarkRG]

If by "Disney" you mean cartoons, then, ok slightly....but Epcot, even the city plan of Walt himself had nothing to do with cartoon characters...the Imagineers decided to go the same direction, leaving that to MK

But to call it less "Disney" because there aren't Mickey & Co. running around is inaccurate at best. Walt had many more things he did that had nothing to do with cartoons.

Yes, but to use the most famous quote of all .. "It all started with a mouse."

And yes, let's focus on Walt's idea for second, for a city, not another theme park, so the reality of Epcot and Walt's vision of the city diverged long ago. And yes, the imagineers omitted the characters on purpose, then they had to scramble to come up with some as the giant little people were creeping people out.

And Epcot has always had a slightly more sterile, museum like quality, lacking. To see how the lack of characters can hurt all you have to do is read another thread on this forum, discussing when they removed two most beloved characters from the park, and one still isn't back, and people feel the lack, myself included. But thankfully characters are starting to be more prominent in other ways such as in Living Seas or in the revamped Mexico pavillion, so I do guess they'll make up for the lack in other ways going forward to try to integrate the foundation of the whole thing into the park more.

And, maybe that's the one thing I can't totally wrap my mind around in liking Walt but not the characters. For me, the characters are a direct extension of a facet of Walt's personality, avatars of him, if you will. I see Mickey, Donald and the rest, I'm seeing a part of Walt.

[coasterj]

Now if only the tombstones in front of SE could come down too. But that won't happen....

Well at least they have stopped selling them and after the wand is taken down spaceship earth will be in its orginal form on the outside.

[MarkRG]

There is the Eisner legacy. Thanks to him...giant tacky oversized icons have become "Disney"

There are some things to totally hate Eisner for, and I don't disagree on that hate.

The Millennium Celebration was not one of them. I horribly miss Tapestry, and I'm a little concerned about Illuminations. And now the last icon of that event is going away. That is what I'll miss. Sorcerer Mickey hearkens to something in all of us, or at least should. And the wand and hat are very prominent reminders of that.

[Another Voice]

But thankfully characters are starting to be more prominent in other ways such as in Living Seas or in the revamped Mexico pavillion,
Characters that are actually in shows - such as Dreamfinder and Buzzy from 'Cranium Command' - are fine and good. But the two examples you mentioned are cheap and crass merchandising attempts. Instead of enhancing the pavilions, they significantly dumbed-down both attractions to point where they are nothing but kiddie rides.

The entire point of EPCOT Center was to build a place for normal adults - the ones that don't need cartoon characters to have a good time - to enjoy themseleves. Exploring the wonders of the world is just as great as watching a bunch of rubber headed characters prance to recorded music; attractions can spark the imagination instead of churning one's stomach.

Eisner never got the "adult" part - mainly because he was interested in selling plush toys and never-ever believed that anyone with an I.Q. over 75 would step into a theme park. The Wand was an example of it - a crass man pandering to people amussed by sparkly lights.

[MasterShake]

Characters that are actually in shows - such as Dreamfinder and Buzzy from 'Cranium Command' - are fine and good. But the two examples you mentioned are cheap and crass merchandising attempts. Instead of enhancing the pavilions, they significantly dumbed-down both attractions to point where they are nothing but kiddie rides.

The entire point of EPCOT Center was to build a place for normal adults - the ones that don't need cartoon characters to have a good time - to enjoy themseleves. Exploring the wonders of the world is just as great as watching a bunch of rubber headed characters prance to recorded music; attractions can spark the imagination instead of churning one's stomach.

Eisner never got the "adult" part - mainly because he was interested in selling plush toys and never-ever believed that anyone with an I.Q. over 75 would step into a theme park. The Wand was an example of it - a crass man pandering to people amussed by sparkly lights.

Or maybe it was just a sign.

[MarkRG]

Hopefully Disney never evolves totally into your ideal form of entertainment, it would be a very sad day indeed. There is that small facet of childhood in all of us, and the Disney parks are the place I embrace that facet and let it breathe, I can be a boring, normal adult the rest of the time.

[ChrisFL]

There are some things to totally hate Eisner for, and I don't disagree on that hate.

The Millennium Celebration was not one of them. I horribly miss Tapestry, and I'm a little concerned about Illuminations. And now the last icon of that event is going away. That is what I'll miss. Sorcerer Mickey hearkens to something in all of us, or at least should. And the wand and hat are very prominent reminders of that.

Sorcerer Mickey never had a wand

[MarkRG]

Sorcerer Mickey never had a wand

In the original Fantasia? Nope. In representations since? Yes, though I will admit it's a lot of the older ones where he has one, the more recent ones he's just pointing his finger. Probably because a wand wouldn't have been safe for kids.

Here's a Pin with him having one, btw.

http://eventservices.disney.go.com/files/10904379.jpg

[thefirebuilds]

cool, maybe for my wedding i can have my picture taken without that blight :cool1:

[YoHo]

Yes, but to use the most famous quote of all .. "It all started with a mouse."

And yes, let's focus on Walt's idea for second, for a city, not another theme park, so the reality of Epcot and Walt's vision of the city diverged long ago. And yes, the imagineers omitted the characters on purpose, then they had to scramble to come up with some as the giant little people were creeping people out.

And Epcot has always had a slightly more sterile, museum like quality, lacking. To see how the lack of characters can hurt all you have to do is read another thread on this forum, discussing when they removed two most beloved characters from the park, and one still isn't back, and people feel the lack, myself included. But thankfully characters are starting to be more prominent in other ways such as in Living Seas or in the revamped Mexico pavillion, so I do guess they'll make up for the lack in other ways going forward to try to integrate the foundation of the whole thing into the park more.

And, maybe that's the one thing I can't totally wrap my mind around in liking Walt but not the characters. For me, the characters are a direct extension of a facet of Walt's personality, avatars of him, if you will. I see Mickey, Donald and the rest, I'm seeing a part of Walt.

No offense, but if I'm to believe your Signature, you had a 20+ year gap between visits and didn't actually see Epcot till 1999. Is that true?
If I'm reading that right, then I have to question your ability to judge a place you've never seen. You've never ridden Horizons, or the original Imagination. Never seen communicore, or The Universe of Energy without Ellen. No World of motion. How can you make a judgment about what is and isn't Disney with so little to base it on?

[MarkRG]

No offense, but if I'm to believe your Signature, you had a 20+ year gap between visits and didn't actually see Epcot till 1999. Is that true?
If I'm reading that right, then I have to question your ability to judge a place you've never seen. You've never ridden Horizons, or the original Imagination. Never seen communicore, or The Universe of Energy without Ellen. No World of motion. How can you make a judgment about what is and isn't Disney with so little to base it on?

None taken :) Yup, you're reading my sig wrong, those are my first years, as it says. I've been to the locations listed starting with that year, at least once a year, sometimes more. I remember Horizons and 'the oranges', which to this day I use a lot of orange/citrus products for that orange smell around the house because of it.

As an aside- you want that smell to the nth degree? Hunt down a Yankee Candle under the line Aromatherapy Spa called True Bliss(oh, that is right!) Tangerine and Vanilla. :earsboy:

I remember the moldy smelling swamp that was the Universe of Energy, I used to laugh at the scary t-rex. I remember when the only thing on WDW property was the Poly, Contemporary and the MK, and was there for the zoo that was the first spring break after the opening of Epcot. I make my statements based on 31 years of visiting WDW with all its changes thru the years.

[thefirebuilds]

And Epcot has always had a slightly more sterile, museum like quality, lacking.

You are really off base now...

[MarkRG]

You are really off base now...

For World Showcase, not so much, although early on they didn't have a lot of content in the countries that were open, but that improved, but even there, do I have to start singing Canada to you? There's three movies telling you the history of the country they're representing. China also seems to end up with a rotating exhibit that any museum would be envious to have, the last time I was in there, it was artifacts from an emperor's burial plot. Future World though seems to have the bigger share.

Lets start out right with the big icon, that is the focus of this discussion, Spaceship Earth. A technological marvel, containing a ride that has, in the past(which I don't know if the new sponsor is just updating or replacing, I hope updating) presented the history of communication, museum info.

The Land, teaches you all about botany, and some of the different ways to cultivate plants. In a way it's lost some of that with the deletion of Food Rocks! to make room for Soarin', but the other Lion King based show which is fun, is still an educational thing. I actually liked it with the really old food court with the Kitchen Kabaret(sp? wrong name maybe?).

There was Horizons, which also taught about the possibilities for the future.

The original GM exhibit, the World of Motion with the doombuggy like vehicles taught the history of the automobile.

Now, the one thing that was common to these rides, is to me the displays themselves bring on a very museum-like feel, the only difference is they're animatronics. And even there, the museum of Milwaukee has on the second floor a display of an Indian pow-wow where the moving Indian figures dance around the fire to the drum beats and song. Yes, it's an animatronic, in a museum.

Now for the most museum like, just go into Innoventions(or Communicore for the older crowd) east or west. Most of the displays are exhibits that people aimlessly wander thru just like in any museum I've ever been in. The only cool addition they've made in a long time is the all day Segway test drive to supplement the early morning one you can do as a guided tour.

That atmosphere has been there all along. it's been removed some by the additions of TT, Soarin, Mission Space and such, but it still does have that feel in certain parts.

And don't get me wrong, none of this is outright bad, just.. lacking. If any of you have been on DCL, you might understand what I mean more. The Magic and the Wonder have a subtle Disney touch that is prevalent everywhere without beating you over the head with characters.

[Another Voice]

Since as was posted here before - more people go to the Smithsonian than go to WDW. So maybe people like learning things even in a "museum setting". Normal adults don't have to have signing dolls, Stitch spewing "chili breath" in their face, or to be spun until they puke to have fun. Saying that EPCOT is a "failure" because it's not exactly like the Magic Kingdom utterly misses the point.

EPCOT was susposed to be a different experience. It's not "wrong" because it lacked characters, it's not "bad" because it lacked a roller coaster. There's nothing wrong with adults for having a place that entertains grown-ups, but there is something wrong with grown-ups demanding only childish diversions.

[MarkRG]

Since as was posted here before - more people go to the Smithsonian than go to WDW. So maybe people like learning things even in a "museum setting". Normal adults don't have to have signing dolls, Stitch spewing "chili breath" in their face, or to be spun until they puke to have fun. Saying that EPCOT is a "failure" because it's not exactly like the Magic Kingdom utterly misses the point.

EPCOT was susposed to be a different experience. It's not "wrong" because it lacked characters, it's not "bad" because it lacked a roller coaster. There's nothing wrong with adults for having a place that entertains grown-ups, but there is something wrong with grown-ups demanding only childish diversions.

Please feel free to quote me where I have said anyplace in this thread, other than in this exact reply, my using the words the words bad, wrong, or failure to describe Epcot. Don't put words I'm not writing, thanks.

It's not a failure, and no I don't expect something exactly like the MK. I just don't agree with your view of what would constitute Disney entertainment, and I don't put the label adult only on any of their parks, neither did Walt. He wanted family entertainment, and that is what I go there for.

[MasterShake]

Since as was posted here before - more people go to the Smithsonian than go to WDW. So maybe people like learning things even in a "museum setting". Normal adults don't have to have signing dolls, Stitch spewing "chili breath" in their face, or to be spun until they puke to have fun. Saying that EPCOT is a "failure" because it's not exactly like the Magic Kingdom utterly misses the point.

EPCOT was susposed to be a different experience. It's not "wrong" because it lacked characters, it's not "bad" because it lacked a roller coaster. There's nothing wrong with adults for having a place that entertains grown-ups, but there is something wrong with grown-ups demanding only childish diversions.

Not sure if I'm looking at the information wrong, but according to the following links more people visited Disney World by far then the Smithsonian Museums + National Zoo in 2006:

19 Smithsonian Museums - 23.2 Million
National Zoo - 2.6 Million

http://www.si.edu/about/

Magic Kingdom - 16.6 Million
Epcot - 10.4 Million
MGM - 9.1 Million
Animal Kingdom - 8.9 Million

http://www.coastergrotto.com/theme-park-attendance.jsp

What you are saying is true, many people do like museums. I've visited the Smithsonian complex's several times and I had a great time. However, I don't want Epcot void of any Thrill Rides/Childish Diversions.

[EUROPACL]

Not sure if I'm looking at the information wrong, but according to the following links more people visited Disney World by far then the Smithsonian Museums + National Zoo in 2006:



So I'm gussing that you don't see the flaw in your logic by posting those numbers uh? I don't want to spoil it for you but think really hard about it. :love: :love: :love:

[YoHo]

I never was devoid of those things. Or at least, not after the Wonders of Life opened.

Futureworld is in many respects like a much bigger version of tomorrowland. We can discuss exactly how much changed between Walt's vision for EPCOT and what we got, but EPCOT CENTER is very much a part of everything Walt was interested in. And, it's the second most popular park to the Magic Kingdom. MGM and AK have not ever surpassed it. Not even back in the early to mid 90s before Epcot started to get changed.
That says to me that the conceit that people don't want that experience is quite wrong.

And of course, it convient that the insults pop culture hurls at Epcot really started after years and years of neglect. At the point where the formerly unique and interesting exhibts were overdue for a replacement. And when they finally scrounged up the money, they abandoned the old plan, because of the ridicule that their inaction caused (and because they never "Got" it)

[MasterShake]

So I'm gussing that you don't see the flaw in your logic by posting those numbers uh? I don't want to spoil it for you but think really hard about it. :love: :love: :love:

Shirley you must be joking.....
I won't make any claims to being all knowing, why don't you enlighten me.

[MasterShake]

I never was devoid of those things. Or at least, not after the Wonders of Life opened.

Futureworld is in many respects like a much bigger version of tomorrowland. We can discuss exactly how much changed between Walt's vision for EPCOT and what we got, but EPCOT CENTER is very much a part of everything Walt was interested in. And, it's the second most popular park to the Magic Kingdom. MGM and AK have not ever surpassed it. Not even back in the early to mid 90s before Epcot started to get changed.
That says to me that the conceit that people don't want that experience is quite wrong.

And of course, it convient that the insults pop culture hurls at Epcot really started after years and years of neglect. At the point where the formerly unique and interesting exhibts were overdue for a replacement. And when they finally scrounged up the money, they abandoned the old plan, because of the ridicule that their inaction caused (and because they never "Got" it)

I agree with a lot of what your saying.....

[raidermatt]

Not sure if I'm looking at the information wrong, but according to the following links more people visited Disney World by far then the Smithsonian Museums + National Zoo in 2006:

19 Smithsonian Museums - 23.2 Million
National Zoo - 2.6 Million

http://www.si.edu/about/

Magic Kingdom - 16.6 Million
Epcot - 10.4 Million
MGM - 9.1 Million
Animal Kingdom - 8.9 Million

http://www.coastergrotto.com/theme-park-attendance.jsp



Actually, in order to get a true answer you have to know how many of the people in those numbers are being counted multiple times. I suspect that more of the WDW visitors fall into that category. I would think that the average visitor to WDW spends more days in the parks than the average visitor to DC spends in the Smithsonian.

It would also be interesting to see what the numbers would look like if you reversed the marketing budgets.

Regardless, point is, as you acknowledged, there are still lots of people out there willing to be educated.

I just don't agree with your view of what would constitute Disney entertainment, and I don't put the label adult only on any of their parks, neither did Walt. He wanted family entertainment, and that is what I go there for.

What is there at Epcot, or more to the point what has there EVER been at Epcot, that would not have been considered family entertainment?

If you're just saying that YOU want more charcters in Epcot and every other park that Disney builds, that's fine. Everybody has their own personal preferences.

But if you look at the history of Disney entertainment, in the parks, on film and on TV, you'll find that there is lots of stuff that is not cartoon based, and in fact has elements of education in it.

Say you don't like it, fine, but you can't reasonably say it wasn't "Disney". Further, all personal preferences aside, Epcot has always out-performed the two newer parks, even after years of stagnation.

As far as what Epcot should be now and in the future, I would think that with 4 theme parks it might make sense to skew one to a slightly older, but still family, crowd. The cartoon character crowd is already coming to WDW no matter what. Provide something a little different at Epcot and maybe it won't be quite as hard to convince the "stick in the mud" faction to come back more frequently.

[EUROPACL]

Shirley you must be joking.....
I won't make any claims to being all knowing, why don't you enlighten me.

I'm not joking and don't call me Shirley....


but If I go to Magic Kingdom on Mon, Epcot on Tues, MGM on Wed, Ak on Thur how many people went to WDW? 1 or 4 ?

[MarkRG]

What is there at Epcot, or more to the point what has there EVER been at Epcot, that would not have been considered family entertainment?

That's a hard one. But I'm not the one who's looking for the adult only aspect. What was said a few posts back sums up what I'd not like to see Epcot take a direction of if that helps answer you.
However, I don't want Epcot void of any Thrill Rides/Childish Diversions.
I'd like to see a good balance remain, more or less where it is now.

If you're just saying that YOU want more charcters in Epcot and every other park that Disney builds, that's fine. Everybody has their own personal preferences.

But if you look at the history of Disney entertainment, in the parks, on film and on TV, you'll find that there is lots of stuff that is not cartoon based, and in fact has elements of education in it.

Say you don't like it, fine, but you can't reasonably say it wasn't "Disney". Further, all personal preferences aside, Epcot has always out-performed the two newer parks, even after years of stagnation.

As far as what Epcot should be now and in the future, I would think that with 4 theme parks it might make sense to skew one to a slightly older, but still family, crowd. The cartoon character crowd is already coming to WDW no matter what. Provide something a little different at Epcot and maybe it won't be quite as hard to convince the "stick in the mud" faction to come back more frequently.

Now, not *just* characters but more... influence of the other aspects of Disney? You're really making me work hard to define this. Need to be more awake, it's been a long day. :surfweb: Again I have to fall back to the Cruiseline, as they really worked hard to bring an elegent but a definite Disney presence that is nigh palpable. In a million small detail ways that are all subtle but there if you look for them, but doesn't begin to be intrusive. About the best I can do. As an example one of the fun subtle things I've seen in Future World has been the sidewalks outside Innoventions at night, with the fiberoptics built into them, it doesn't have to be all about characters.

And I definitely know the history, grew up on the original Walt hosted Wonderful World of Disney shows, which did strike a great balance.

And it's not that I dislike Epcot, quite the opposite actually. And it's getting better, just early on, especially Future World had a very... sterile?..70's futuristic? I don't know how to describe it other than being such a far step outside what I would think of as Disney. And with the changes they've already made it is reasonable to say Disney was aware they needed to take steps too. For me the educational aspect is good, and perhaps going to a slightly higher age group is good as long as they try to keep adding in the direction I've already tried to describe.

[raidermatt]

Well, most of the fundamental changes are because they decided they don't want to pay for an updated "Future" World periodically. Same as with Tomorrowland.

I could be misinterpreting, but I don't think anyone is suggesting Epcot be designed to appeal to adults only. If so I'd disagree vehemently.

It was designed to entertain families in a different way, and a way that would, on average, skew more towards the older members of a family than the younger ones, at least as compared to DL/MK.

But just as DL/MK weren't designed ONLY to enterain kiddies, Epcot wasn't supposed to ONLY entertain adults, and it didn't.

Fiber optics in the sidewalks is fine, but I see things like that as being vastly different from what has been done to the pavilions/attractions.

[mitros]

Amazingly, once again a thread has totally lost it's original point of the story, that is, the stupid wand is coming down. Time to close the thread or reopen the debate board, dontcha' think?:confused3

[MarkRG]

Well, most of the fundamental changes are because they decided they don't want to pay for an updated "Future" World periodically. Same as with Tomorrowland.

I could be misinterpreting, but I don't think anyone is suggesting Epcot be designed to appeal to adults only. If so I'd disagree vehemently.
Oh, yes I agree, but the work they did to refit Tomorrowland still has a bit of the ..whimsical? to it. It's futuristic but in a way that'll remain ageless. Future World is getting to that point now, but it wasn't that way for a long while.

As far as an adult only experince, I get the distinct impression that is what Another Voice wants, and I also disagree with that viewpoint.

It was designed to entertain families in a different way, and a way that would, on average, skew more towards the older members of a family than the younger ones, at least as compared to DL/MK.

But just as DL/MK weren't designed ONLY to enterain kiddies, Epcot wasn't supposed to ONLY entertain adults, and it didn't.

Fiber optics in the sidewalks is fine, but I see things like that as being vastly different from what has been done to the pavilions/attractions.

True, and I don't disagree completely. But especially the Living Seas has needed help for a very very long time, ever since they shut down the original ride that was in there, the movie and the hydrolators an attraction does not make. And I don't see Turtle Talk or the Nemo effects/ride as that bad a thing. It brings at least something to the venue that's going to bring people in. And any kind of update to the original theme would have just looked dated again very quickly. I can't comment on what's been done to Mexico other than the fact the old ride was looking very dated, as I havn't been on the new one yet.

As far as fiberoptics, that's just one small example, and yes, the attractions need to have more regular refurbishments or they will begin to be dated. There's a link to an article about Walt up here from a buisness magazine. (link Crazy4WDW posted) (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-17948809.htm) That just about sums up my viewpoint. Epcot, and Future World especially went too long without some kind of 'plussing', the subtle touches that the parks need to grow on.

[MarkRG]

Amazingly, once again a thread has totally lost it's original point of the story, that is, the stupid wand is coming down. Time to close the thread or reopen the debate board, dontcha' think?:confused3

True enough, I got detoured on my point that maybe it wasn't so horrible a thing to have some character influences in Epcot.

And I still dont think it was stupid, and will miss seeing it there. :p

[raidermatt]

I agree that pavilions like the Living Seas were in desparate need of updating, but that is a completely separate from what actually should have been done. Or more to the point, what would have achieved the optimal results.

Tomorrowland? There's really not much tomorrow-like about it anymore. It's basically an animated character-based science fiction land now.

Again, I'm not saying changes shouldn't have been made. Only that the idea that the concepts of these places were the problem is simply not true.

[YoHo]

Heck, Tomorrowland doesn't even represent what they SAID tomorrowland was suppposed to represnt when they rebuilt it.

[miranda1979]

*shrug* Guess I'm the only one who liked it, and am sorry to see it go. I really thought it brought a little of Disney into the one park where it was sorely lacking.

Now.. the graveyard on the other hand..... :lmao:

No I loved it too..and so did my mom. were sad. :(

[CMedley78]

I actually liked the wand...I like the hat at MGM, too. It looks like I am in the minority. So....now that the wand will be gone for the 25th anniversary, I wonder what they are planning, if anything, for that event....

[Goobergal99]

:cool1: :cool1: :cool1: :banana: :banana: :banana: :cheer2: :cheer2: :cheer2: :cheer2:

My hubby will be so excited he always wanted to see Spaceship earth without that ugly hand on it!!!! :yay:

[JPN4265]

Just heard that they are putting a Mickey's Santa Hat on the sphere. Should be an interesting Christmas.:santa:

[rwrocksme]

What is so bad about the hat? Sure, the "2000" sign needs to go, but the rest is cool!!!

[thefirebuilds]

The problem is that they go to great pains to develop skylines, great buildings, etc and then cover them up with thoughtless and cheap icons. What is the point of the wand? What is the point of the hat? Wasted space and it looks stupid. Even worse it ruins the simplicity that the designers spent tons of money and time to create.

[Maistre Gracey]

... What is the point of the wand? What is the point of the hat? Wasted space and it looks stupid...
I believe the purpose of the wand was to celebrate the year "2000" (notice I didn't say "milenium"), much like they have dressed Cinderella Castle for various events in the past.
My guess is the cost of the wand couldn't be justified for a one year show, so they extended the wand life by changing it to "Epcot".

I have never minded the wand, but that silly hat is an eyesore. :sad2:

MG

[Maistre Gracey]

but If I go to Magic Kingdom on Mon, Epcot on Tues, MGM on Wed, Ak on Thur how many people went to WDW? 1 or 4 ?
Couldn't you say the same thing about the 19 Smithsonian Museums?

MG

[thefirebuilds]

It would be like putting a giant oversized mickey icon directly in front of the castle. Tack and nonsensical.

[DancingBear]

I believe the purpose of the wand was to celebrate the year "2000" (notice I didn't say "milenium"), much like they have dressed Cinderella Castle for various events in the past.
My guess is the cost of the wand couldn't be justified for a one year show, so they extended the wand life by changing it to "Epcot".C'mon, that makes no sense. They knew the cost before they put it up. And leaving it up (and paying the cost to change the sign) doesn't bring any more revenue, or constitute an attraction that occupies guests.

[Maistre Gracey]

C'mon, that makes no sense. They knew the cost before they put it up. And leaving it up (and paying the cost to change the sign) doesn't bring any more revenue, or constitute an attraction that occupies guests.
I agree. I never said the original plan was for the wand to be up only 1 year.

Not everything is done to directly bring more revenue. Many things are done to enhance the park appearance, which in turn may increase attendance. Regardless of your views on the wand, that was likely Disney's intention. :smokin:

MG

[EUROPACL]

Couldn't you say the same thing about the 19 Smithsonian Museums?

MG

Sure...is that the way the Smithsonian counts its attendance?

[Maistre Gracey]

Sure...is that the way the Smithsonian counts its attendance?
Beats me! :smokin:

MG

[AngieWin]

When we were at Epcot last week, PCOT were down, E was left though. It is coming down now!

[Keyser]

Sure...is that the way the Smithsonian counts its attendance?

Yes, the Smithsonian figures add together the attendance at each of the 19 museums (they might not double count those going to the two co-located ones, though) to get the total number (see, for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901720.html). So using that counting mechanism, WDW has about twice the attendance of the Smithsonian, not less. People go visit multiple WDW parks per trip (so one person might be counted 10 times in that figure), but they also visit multiple Smithsonian museums. People also visit the same park/museum over and over. Overall, I would guess that these things tend to inflate the WDW numbers more than the Smithsonian ones, but neither is counting a unique individual only once. If you were to guess that the average visitor visits 4 WDW parks, and 2 Smithsonian museums, the numbers come out about equal.

The main point that was being made, though, is that lots of people still enjoy going to museums. And, that seems reflected in the fact that a lot of people go to the Smithsonian each year (though, as that (old) article points out, attendance seems to be dropping, overall).

[Maistre Gracey]

If an individual pays for 4 admissions, than they should be counted 4 times. In the case of WDW, that would mean they should be counted at least every day, perhaps even twice per day if they buy hopping privileges since they indirectly paid for 2 parks in 1 day.
It wouldn't make sense to count an entire vacation as 1 admission. That person could spend 6 out of 7 days at Universal, or all 7 at WDW. :smokin:

MG