5 Epcot Rumors (A Disney Rumors video is on pg. 6)

[rteetz]

And is it wrong I want more...modern Future stuff in FutureWorld? I would kill for an updated Horizons that embodies the spirit of the original, while using the newest technologies in Imagineering, to show life in the future? Seems S though EPCOT is losing the spirit of Walts vision. :/

Walt's vision was never realized. He wanted a community where people would live and people movers would be everywhere a city practically a utopia it would have been very difficult to pull off. When Epcot opened it was the best it was they got rid of horizons for many reasons I wouldn't see it coming back. Future world needs new future stuff not old updated rides.

 

[Figmentforever24]

A source is a person you actually have talked to in person or on a phone. It isn't someone whose post you read on a message board. At least Disneysource made up a story about some relative. He probably doesn't exist, but if he does he would actually be a viable source.

Ok well I have a friend who says it is being worked on. I am not giving names or positions in the company but he is real and he is honest. Now it doesn't matter where Rteetz got the info from since a source means it can come from anywhere not just people. A source simply means that is where the rumor or news originated. So no need to bash Rteetz for giving news about something VERY likely to happen.

 

[disneysource]

Where exactly are some of these rides going in EPCOT? I know where is space between countries, but what has to go in the UK for Alice, and what goes in France for Ratatouille?

Alice maybe put on the left side of the U.K. near the international gateway. It's possible that the gazebo near the back garden area maybe be demolished too if more space is needed.

As for Ratatouille, their probably going to put that on the left near Chef de France.

 

[skier_pete]

I personally try not to "bash on" people. I tend to be skeptical on all rumors, not because of the person stating it not revealing their sources, but because there are almost NO realable sources. Most people that would actually be "in the know" would be of sufficient rank to know better than to tell their friends what's going on. Even hearing it from an imagineer means very little, they are constantly working on projects that are never going to get built.

Look at a year or so ago when it was "definite" that Carsland was coming to DHS. There were numerous very reliable "sources" to the point that the DIS themselves reported it was a done deal. And guess what, it didn't happen.

What I tend to look it on the rumors board is the reality of a rumor. In other words, would Disney really genuinely do this. Therefore, if someone posts the rumor that they are going to rip out Space Mountain and replace it with a Tron coaster, I may call that rumor "stupid" or "nonsensical", but I am in no way bashing on the PERSON posting the rumor, or denigrating the fact that they got it from somewhere.

For instance - the part of this rumor about WS opening at 9 AM. I'm sure it's something that gets talked about off and on in various circles. But, does it really make sense for Disney?

It's something that could have been done anytime in the last 30 years. There's a significant added cost to staffing WS for 2 more hours a day. Would it get more people into Epcot? No. Does Epcot get overcrowded in the first two hours of the day? No Is there demand for certain aspects of WS early in the day? No.

Look, even if they added an E-ticket ride in France, there's no reason they couldn't just open that one RIDE early. Look at Akershus Princess Breakfast. You can go into WS at 8 AM and have breakfast with Princesses. But they don't open the rest of WS for it.

Why now? What benefit is there? I don't see any for Disney. So do I think they would do it? No I don't. That doesn't mean the OP didn't hear it from someone, and even from someone that works for Disney.

But please, I hope no one ever takes what I post as a personal assault. It is not meant that way. It's an opinion, plain and simple.

 

[disneysource]

There certainly is something that could be done with this space, but "Inside Out" is several years away, and "Bug's Life" makes little sense to go with the Wonders Of Life concept. Disney doesn't build attractions based on movies that haven't come out yet - with ironically enough "It's tough to be a bug" being the ONLY exception in 60 years. This more sounds like someone's idea of "Hey wouldn't it be great if..."
Likelyhood - No Way Jose

Inside Out is going to be in theaters Next Year. So, I can see it becoming an attraction in Future World, especially in the Wonders of Life pavilion.

 

[rteetz]

I personally try not to "bash on" people. I tend to be skeptical on all rumors, not because of the person stating it not revealing their sources, but because there are almost NO realable sources. Most people that would actually be "in the know" would be of sufficient rank to know better than to tell their friends what's going on. Even hearing it from an imagineer means very little, they are constantly working on projects that are never going to get built. Look at a year or so ago when it was "definite" that Carsland was coming to DHS. There were numerous very reliable "sources" to the point that the DIS themselves reported it was a done deal. And guess what, it didn't happen. What I tend to look it on the rumors board is the reality of a rumor. In other words, would Disney really genuinely do this. Therefore, if someone posts the rumor that they are going to rip out Space Mountain and replace it with a Tron coaster, I may call that rumor "stupid" or "nonsensical", but I am in no way bashing on the PERSON posting the rumor, or denigrating the fact that they got it from somewhere. For instance - the part of this rumor about WS opening at 9 AM. I'm sure it's something that gets talked about off and on in various circles. But, does it really make sense for Disney? It's something that could have been done anytime in the last 30 years. There's a significant added cost to staffing WS for 2 more hours a day. Would it get more people into Epcot? No. Does Epcot get overcrowded in the first two hours of the day? No Is there demand for certain aspects of WS early in the day? No. Look, even if they added an E-ticket ride in France, there's no reason they couldn't just open that one RIDE early. Look at Akershus Princess Breakfast. You can go into WS at 8 AM and have breakfast with Princesses. But they don't open the rest of WS for it. Why now? What benefit is there? I don't see any for Disney. So do I think they would do it? No I don't. That doesn't mean the OP didn't hear it from someone, and even from someone that works for Disney. But please, I hope no one ever takes what I post as a personal assault. It is not meant that way. It's an opinion, plain and simple.

I didn't think cars was a done deal ever, and it know the dis said it was because they saw cars stuff in the imagineering building on their tour that said WDW. My source did state at one point tho cars was seriously being considered for WDW but then of course Star Wars came on board. Things change in imagineering all the time I understand that and frozen may never end up coming to maelstrom but at this time it's very very convincing and many people are saying its coming. I also agree with you completely on early hours in world showcase.

 

[skier_pete]

Inside Out is going to be in theaters Next Year. So, I can see it becoming an attraction in Future World, especially in the Wonders of Life pavilion.

Yes, it's going to be out in 2015. Other than "It's Tough to be a bug", what's the fastest a movie has been converted to an attraction in a Disney park. 5 years? Even if this Frozen rumor is true, they are talking 2 more years before it is open.

There's no way they pull the trigger on "Inside Out" until they are sure it's popular.

 

[JoWiJo]

A source is a person you actually have talked to in person or on a phone. It isn't someone whose post you read on a message board. At least Disneysource made up a story about some relative. He probably doesn't exist, but if he does he would actually be a viable source.

Since when does a source have to be person you've talked to directly? As far as I can remember, you can count a person as a source if you've read something they've written. This would be books and articles, and in today's world, even websites.

To be fair, there are such things as primary sources and secondary sources. A primary source is someone directly in on the know about the topic. A secondary source is, well, anyone else. But in neither case are you required to have spoken with them in person. Certainly permissible, but not required.

In the context of this Norway ride change, a primary source could be a member on Disney's executive board, a high-ranking Imagineer, or the Disney World Website. A secondary source would be the wife of a Disney executive, Bob Iger's best friend that's outside of the Disney family, a WDW Resort bus driver, the blog of someone who talked to a WDW bus driver, someone who read that blog, this (and other) forums, a random guest you met in the line of Splash Mountain, any news website (whether or not dedicated to Disney), a blurb on CNN, etc.

As such, there are varying levels of credibility within secondary sources. Some could be highly reliable. Others are highly suspect. And even when it comes to reliable individuals, it is still hearsay. And due to this uncertainty, secondary sources are not ideal for research, or for references. But they shouldn't necessarily be ignored altogether, either, especially when they are connected to a primary source.

In this scenario, we apparently have someone who claims to have listened to someone who is in the know. And this is where primary/secondary source issues get muddled. Assuming the author of the article was in fact in the meeting in question, he, and his article would be primary sources about what went on in the meeting, because the author was there. Even if it's something on a website. This means the claim that they have privately announced to make the change would come from a source -- a primary source. But as to whether Frozen will actually come to Norway, the author is a secondary source, since they aren't involved in the alleged project.

And this is what makes the topic in question such a great debate as to whether this transformation will transpire, because we just don't know, yet there is supposedly strong evidence it will. At this point, the readers must ask themselves, was the author really there, and do they have a proven track record? From that point, the reader decides for themselves if Frozen is coming to the Norway pavilion.

 

[disneysource]

Yes, it's going to be out in 2015. Other than "It's Tough to be a bug", what's the fastest a movie has been converted to an attraction in a Disney park. 5 years? Even if this Frozen rumor is true, they are talking 2 more years before it is open.

There's no way they pull the trigger on "Inside Out" until they are sure it's popular.

It's just being talked about right now. That doesn't mean that it will be unveiled this year. Afterall Disney really takes its time with making attractions.

I found a few movie and ride dates though that were close to each other.

Beauty and the Beast (movie 91, attraction 91)
Honey I shrunk kids playset (movie 89, attraction 90)
Finding Nemo (movie 03, attraction 03, but wasn't finished until 07)

 

[Dfan79]

Since when does a source have to be person you've talked to directly? As far as I can remember, you can count a person as a source if you've read something they've written. This would be books and articles, and in today's world, even websites.

If someone says "I have several sources that are saying blah blah blah." It is totally different then someone saying "I read on a message board a poster said blah blah blah."

 

[skier_pete]

It's just being talked about right now. That doesn't mean that it will be unveiled this year. Afterall Disney really takes its time with making attractions.

I found a few movie and ride dates though that were close to each other.

Beauty and the Beast (movie 91, attraction 91)
Honey I shrunk kids playset (movie 89, attraction 90)
Finding Nemo (movie 03, attraction 03, but wasn't finished until 07)

Hmmmm, I did not know the first two were so close to the movies! Interesting. Though characters appearing in a show is much more common. Rapunzel is in Mickey and the Magic Map at DL and that's only been around 3 years,and the Pochanats stuff in Fantasmic was only a year or two after the movie came out. The old Lion King attraction in Fantasyland was also pretty close.

The Finding Nemo one is more to my point though - a huge hit, it made a lot of sense to incorporate it, but still took 4 years to put in a ride . Frozen, if it happens, will probably be at least 3 years.

 

[disneysource]

The Finding Nemo one is more to my point though - a huge hit, it made a lot of sense to incorporate it, but still took 4 years to put in a ride . Frozen, if it happens, will probably be at least 3 years.

Yep, I concur. This is why it is actually possible they've talked about their future movies becoming rides in the parks. Disney probably won't finish most of their attractions for 2-4 years after it was first talked about. This way if the movie ends up stinking or does bad at the box office then they can just change it.

Like with the new version of Test Track, it was probably supposed to be based on Tron, but that did horrible at the movies. But they loved the idea so much that they still went forward with the retheming.

 

[SoarinSC]

It seems as most of us have lost the vision of Epcot. World showcase is not supposed to have Disney movie character rides, exception is three caballeros in Mexico. World showcase is Disney showcasing countries of the world. Adding rides that take away from that makes world showcase less authentic. Future world, adding muppets is no where near futuristic. Yes Epcot needs change but adding Disney characters everywhere makes this another magic kingdom Epcot is the park of the world and the future. What they should do is add more countries, and revamp future world that would set up Epcot for years. Tom Fitzgerald when he accepted the job stated that he wanted to go back to the old Epcot. Adding character rides takes that vision out.

I'm also surprised no one has brought up the hundreds of rumors that frozen will be taking over maelstrom in Norway.

In such agreement with you ...I'm hoping mainly for more innovation in Future World...a bringing back of that sense of what-can-be that I remember having when I first visited as a kid in the 80's...adding characters is so not what Epcot needs.

 

[DisneyDad222]

I may be in the minority, but I'd welcome any ride / play area / distraction in the world showcase. With a ds5 and dd2, they get extremely bored every time we go through the countries. When you take a step back and look at what there is to do in the ws, it boils down to 3 things : window shop, drink and snack. For adults, it's a great way to spend a few hours - for kids, it's boring. What can kids do in the ws? Kid-cot stations have them do arts and crafts - fun for one country, but tiring after 8. The Agent P game is a good distraction for older kids - but for kids that can't read yet, like mine, it's just confusing.

So I say, give me as many rides as possible. I could easily see a Ratatouille dark ride in France. I could see an Alice play center behind UK (similar to honey I shrunk the kids in HS). I think Frozen is a given. The only thing I would add is some kind of Mulan attraction in China. For me, this would be a great way to get younger kids interested in the culture of these countries by tying the experience to the movies they love. I agree with those that say don't force it. Is Aladdin really part of Morocoo? Can we pretend that Pocahontas is Canadian? No, no we shouldn't. But when it makes sense, I say do it.

 

[jamarmiller]

I may be in the minority, but I'd welcome any ride / play area / distraction in the world showcase. With a ds5 and dd2, they get extremely bored every time we go through the countries. When you take a step back and look at what there is to do in the ws, it boils down to 3 things : window shop, drink and snack. For adults, it's a great way to spend a few hours - for kids, it's boring. What can kids do in the ws? Kid-cot stations have them do arts and crafts - fun for one country, but tiring after 8. The Agent P game is a good distraction for older kids - but for kids that can't read yet, like mine, it's just confusing.

So I say, give me as many rides as possible. I could easily see a Ratatouille dark ride in France. I could see an Alice play center behind UK (similar to honey I shrunk the kids in HS). I think Frozen is a given. The only thing I would add is some kind of Mulan attraction in China. For me, this would be a great way to get younger kids interested in the culture of these countries by tying the experience to the movies they love. I agree with those that say don't force it. Is Aladdin really part of Morocoo? Can we pretend that Pocahontas is Canadian? No, no we shouldn't. But when it makes sense, I say do it.

totally agree with you. These things would cause children to be more interested in different cultures/countries and perhaps would make them, to one day, want to actually go to them

 

[si-am]

totally agree with you. These things would cause children to be more interested in different cultures/countries and perhaps would make them, to one day, want to actually go to them

I hate to think that kids would need a Disney character to inspire them to travel as adults.

I was 8 when Epcot opened and loved WS-- didn't find it boring at all. I would hate to see it "dumbed down" by an onslaught of characters which would ruin the atmosphere for those of us (adults and older kids) who actually really love and enjoy WS for what it is.

 

[rteetz]

I hate to think that kids would need a Disney character to inspire them to travel as adults. I was 8 when Epcot opened and loved WS-- didn't find it boring at all. I would hate to see it "dumbed down" by an onslaught of characters which would ruin the atmosphere for those of us (adults and older kids) who actually really love and enjoy WS for what it is.

I agree there doesn't need to be a character tie in. Is it okay in some cases yes of course like mulan etc. But to incorporate characters in any way possible is not the vision of WS.

 

[jamarmiller]

I hate to think that kids would need a Disney character to inspire them to travel as adults.

I was 8 when Epcot opened and loved WS-- didn't find it boring at all. I would hate to see it "dumbed down" by an onslaught of characters which would ruin the atmosphere for those of us (adults and older kids) who actually really love and enjoy WS for what it is.

I think you would be very surprised, personally, on how much things like this work on the subconscious level on children. Also I said it would "cause more interest" and not "need", I think "need" is a bit too strong. but yes, it creates an interest in that foreign country when many times there would be no connection at all. The kid sees Mulan the movie, realizes its from a country called china. Whats China mommy and daddy they ask? and it goes on from them. Later in life when the kid is an adult and able to travel. His travel ( especially if its overseas locations ) is somehow influenced by those old movies/characters connections.

When I was a boy I liked GI JOE, my favorite character was the white ninja Japanese guy. I stopped playing with toys in my early teens. But that character really inspired me on a conscious and subconscious level to take a look at Japan when I was looking at overseas locations to travel to. ( for the record, I do not watch anime or play with/buy toys so I am no otaku ) Now I have a vacation home in Japan where I am at for almost half the year ( as I am retired but teaching economics and finance part time at Japanese Universities ).

I love Epcot, love it, its the ONE park I must go to at least once a year. But Disney really needs to put some characters in there with some rides that make kids want to go to that part of the park, because many many kids DONT really want to go to that part of the park. Dont force them in, but when there is China, and you have a Movie/character like Mulan you put Mulan into it ect ect.

 

[disneysource]

I heard the "The bugs life" movie is about the human body. With some footage of Flik the ant, but mostly he's just a voice-over narration for the film.

They also have space for a restaurant and store inside the pavillion. I'm not sure what they intend to do with that space though. Hopefully if do make a restaurant it will have some healthy choices like the last restaurant that was in the pavillion.

 

[SoarinSC]

I heard the "The bugs life" movie is about the human body. With some footage of Flik the ant, but mostly he's just a voice-over narration for the film.

Call me strange, but that's putting some icky images into my head right now. Bugs...human body...*resisting the urge to scratch*.