El Rio del Tiempo to undergo lengthy refurbishment

[dbm20th]

Instead of getting a new show about 'Energy' - we get a figure of some cheesy sitcom star stuck in the middle of the old show. Is that a "new show" to keep guests interested - or something cheap to market as "new"?

And the crime is they both stink. The old UoE was one of the worst over-the-top corporate sillyness I ever saw, now we have just a bad film...

Why knock down 'Horizons' to build 'Space' - why not both? That was the original plan for EPCOT all along. As far as know, people are interested in both space and the future - not one or the other.

Great point, but Horizons needed a refurb bad. I agree that both is better, but then again the bean counters always poke their heads into these things

While the replacement of 'World of Motion' with 'TestTrack' wasn't cheap - it sure did drop a couple dozen I.Q. points. Instead of at least trying to be entertaining, interesting and fun - it's so much easier to give everyone the same thrills you can experience on I-4. "Cheap" can mean talent and effort spent as well as dollars.

I don't know about this one. You certainly didn't come out of WoM with a higher IQ. In fact, it was very similar to many others including SE and Horizons but not nearly as good. They may have "tried" to be entertaining, interesting and fun but to me it was not. Test Track, however, is a blast!

"Cheap" means Disney doesn't even try anymore. Instead of creating something that really works, that really pleases - their focus is on doing just enough to get you to hand over your wallet.

Here we get into the same debate as always, and I don't want to do that. But to say they don't try or it doesn't work is a matter of your opinion AV. What appeals to you does not appeal to everyone.

There used to be enough there so that everyone could find something to do. Children enjoyed the Magic Kingdom, adults could have a real vacation at EPCOT Center.

True, but the problem with this is that the adults don't get to drop the kids off at MK and go to Epcot, now do they?

...or cramming Donald into a Mexican restuarant seriously damages WDW's market potential

market potential? can you explain this idea a bit more, I don't think I'm following you. I agree it is conceptually a bad idea, but I'm not sure how it damages "market potential"?

 

[Another Voice]

First – as shocking as this may be – I don’t disagree much with you about the old ‘Universe of Energy’ and ‘World of Motion’. Both shows were so influenced by their sponsors that they became little more than commercials for the internal combustion engine. So it’s not that I miss the shows because of their overall quality or because I enjoyed them so much.

But those shows did at least try. Both had a monumental size that requires risk, both tackled rather uninteresting subjects and tried to make it entertaining – ‘Energy’ through huge scope and scale (the dinosaurs, the huge movie formats), ‘Motion’ through humor. And they tried to make them appeal to both adults and to older children. How much either worked is very much open to debate.

But there is no doubt that both shows were greater reaches than ‘Test Track’. Speeding people at 60 mph is the easiest thrill possible; the rest of the ride is nothing but dressed up dark ride gags. The show lacks the ambition that the others had.

And that is my biggest beef with Disney – they simple don’t try to push themselves anymore.

The “old” attractions at EPCOT Center had a feeling of grandeur, of pride – each one had a moment that you had the audience go “WOW” at what was created. It wasn’t a kick in the gut – it was a kick to the imagination. It’s seeing Earth float among the stars at the top of ‘Space Ship’ Earth, it was the giant movie spheres in ‘Horizons’, it was the first site of the main tank at ‘The Living Seas’.

The new shows don’t have that. They seem small, unambitious. Sure, they might cost a lot of money, but even you have to admit that ‘Soaring’ gives you more kick-in-the-pants feeling than ‘Mission: Space’ does (and for a third of the cost).

Talent and hard work are far more important than budget.

The problem with WDW’s market is one I’ve already written about. The resort really took off with the opening of EPCOT Center. For the first time people without any interest in Mickey Mouse pancakes or dressing up like princesses had a reason to go to WDW. There are a park aimed at adults and older families. It was a place to go to have a real vacation – instead of a pilgrimage to tithe to The Mouse. Sure, everyone would still go to the Magic Kingdom, but the perception of WDW became that of a real resort – not of a theme park with hotels around it.

But over the last ten years, Disney has focused it’s growth on frequent visitors. Instead of a general purpose resort with a lot of different activities – WDW is becoming more and more focused on a “brand experience”. It’s a place where everything ties back to a larger corporate marketing purpose. The Disney/MGM Studios doesn’t focus on the “joy of movies” anymore; it’s aimed squarely at selling you DVDs of Disney movies.

Believe it or not, most people with money in this country aren’t tied to Disney like people around here. Turning every major restaurant into a character dining opportunity discourages more people from going than it encourages. EPCOT is no longer a place where you “dine around the world”, it’s a place to see Donald’s Mexican show.

You can’t run a studio by making the same movie over and over again. Nor can you run a vacation resort by only offering a narrow product – Mickey & Friends.

 

[Galahad]

AV has once again hit the nail on the head. We still go to WDW each year. We haven't been to any of the parks in 3 years though. What's the point - I'm a CBA data point now. We bought into DVC in its second year because of the uniqueness of it. It's now so ubiquitous that it doesn't have nearly the value it once had, for example.

 

[dbm20th]

But those shows did at least try. Both had a monumental size that requires risk, both tackled rather uninteresting subjects and tried to make it entertaining – ‘Energy’ through huge scope and scale (the dinosaurs, the huge movie formats), ‘Motion’ through humor. And they tried to make them appeal to both adults and to older children. How much either worked is very much open to debate.

Yes, very, very open for debate. Sure they tried, but to do what? To glorify the companies that sponsored them. But I digress. I don't want to get into that ride/commercial debate because people get angry with me for thinking these types of things do nothing but cheapen the experience. (And yes, Walt was guilty of this, too)

They didn't do a very good job of either entertaining or educating. Their replacements certainly do not educate, but at least Test Track entertains. But I see your point.

And that is my biggest beef with Disney – they simple don’t try to push themselves anymore.

This is where we always go, isn't it? It seems like you and I are always sucked into this one, but that's the fun I guess.

You see AV, I agree that some of the new rides are less then spectacular and/or easy. We go to E:E again. Now I know you have not been on it, but you do know what went into making it happen. The research, the technology. This seems like trying to me., and it succeeded. The same can be said of the new Nemo attractions, both ride and show.

Now this all gets very objective doesn't it? I go on Snow White and say to myself, "huh? that's it? I waited on that line for statues?" But others rush to it in the morning. My point is, it works for them. Test Track works for many, many people.

The new shows don’t have that. They seem small, unambitious. Sure, they might cost a lot of money, but even you have to admit that ‘Soaring’ gives you more kick-in-the-pants feeling than ‘Mission: Space’ does (and for a third of the cost).

I agree with the Soarin part 100%, but that's a new ride made during the time you often criticize. It is newer than TT, so isn't that a sign that better days are ahead? But I don't think the new Nemo ride, T:T or even Mission Space and T:T are at all unambitious. Compared to throwing a giant GM commercial using the same AA technology for many other rides, or an informercial for Exxon with 2 minutes worth of Dinosaurs that looked only marginally better then the ones used 20 years earlier, Turtle Talk seems rather ambitious to me.

You can’t run a studio by making the same movie over and over again. Nor can you run a vacation resort by only offering a narrow product – Mickey & Friends

Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't really following you here. I agree 100% in concept, but I think you may be a bit reactionary that's all. Adding the Duck to El Rio Del Tiemp, or Nemo to the Living Sea turns it only slightly more kiddish to me. You still have PLENTY of things for adults to do and enjoy, but now there is a bit more the kids can find fun. Not a big deal to me. Now, it Scrooge McDuck gets behind the bar at the Rose and Crown...then we have problems.

 

[Keyser]

The new shows don’t have that. They seem small, unambitious. Sure, they might cost a lot of money, but even you have to admit that ‘Soaring’ gives you more kick-in-the-pants feeling than ‘Mission: Space’ does (and for a third of the cost).

Do I understand that you think Soarin' is a better effort on Disney's part than Mission Space? If I'm misunderstanding, ignore the below, but otherwise:

It seems like of all the things to complain about not being in the Disney mold, Soarin should be held up as a poster child. There's basically no story. You don't get drawn in to any type of story, you're just boarding a "flight". The "flight" is supposed to be kind of like hang gliding I guess, but not really. The movie itself isn't coherent in any way - jumping from scene to scene with no sense of purpose. Maybe there's some greater purpose about traveling through California, but if so, that thread is lost. Soarin' is a good use of technology, that provides a cool, unique sensory experience. And, it's something most of the family can ride and enjoy together. But, as you have argued, Disney should be striving for a lot more than providing unique sensory experiences.

On the other hand, Mission:Space does have a story and is far more immersive. You can nitpick the details of the story, but it's certainly following one, and letting you experience something that people can and do only dream about***. Like Soarin, it uses technology to create a cool, unique sensory experience. And, the technology is used for the story, not the other way around (I get the feeling that the vague elements of Soarin are only there to support the technology they have to show).

Don't get me wrong - I really enjoy Soarin and I hope to ride it multiple times when I go in January. But, when I look at these two rides, and ask which one is more reflective of the Disney goals you constantly speak of, Mission:Space wins hands down. And, nothing about Mission:Space seems small and unambitious to me - where does that come from?

I'd also argue, based on what I had heard in Rohde's talk (if you remember that from several months back), that Expedition Everest was quite far from the "small and unambitious" stage. But, I'm going to wait to really judge this one until I've seen it myself.



*** I am excepting from this the few hundred people who actually manage to make it to astronaut training, as well as the people with the extra millions of dollars lying around to pay for astronaut training. In any case, I hope you would agree that astronaut training is a bit more dreamlike than taking hang gliding lessons, which tens of thousands have done.

 

[Another Voice]

I'll have to be brief as I'm stuck in an airport in the middle of the night and right now I'd rather be thinking evil thoughts about the entire airline industry...

What I meant on 'Soaring' is that it gives a much more enjoyable, more varied, and more "this is fun" set of sensations than 'Mission: Space' does. 'Space' is just plain brute force; it just wants to squeeze your eyeballs out your nose. Enjoyable to some perhaps, but I think most people have more fun on 'Soaring'. Feeling the urge to pick up your feet so they don't get wet in the river, the sudden sense of vertigo flying over the cliffs at Lake Tahoe, wanting to duck from the golf ball or swooping low over the aircraft carrier in San Diego Harbor.

Those are a lot of "feel-them-in-your-gut" experiences - all of them produced by a ride that cost a fraction of what 'Space' did.

Good attractions are very elaborate illustions. They don't have to be expensive or offer cutting edge technology. They just have to be put together with skill, showmanship and effort. And all kinds of talent, like that on 'Mission: Space', doesn't help if the central illustion of the attraction isn't interesting.

And I'm not saying 'Soaring' is a great ride for the reasons you listed. Disney found a wonderful toy - and then went cheap. A few simple changes could have made the entire experience so much bigger, so much more powerful. Hiding the screen, a better structured film, a pre-show...we just got the main course without the appetizer, a side dish or desert; it's not as statifying as a full meal.

As for 'Space', most people don't dream about training to be an astronaut - people want to be an astronaut. I don't want to learn which button to push when - I want to stand on the Moon, I want to run my fingers through the sands of Mars. I want to experience zero-gee, I want to see stars. I want to know who's looking back at us from those stars.

It's hard to get an audience to suspend their disbielf, but they're very willing if the story is interesting. Being in a simulation of a simulation of a trip to Mars doesn't really engage me. It's like a movie, unless you're interested in the central premise (a hobbit with a ring, a teenager with super powers, an unemployeed sitcom actor playing Santa 'Clause' one more time to pay off the Chevy), it really doesn't matter how well the lighting and the art direction are.

The problem with both 'Space' and 'Everest' (and a lot of other recent bits) is that WDI is mistaking "plot" for "story". It's perhaps a bit too much to go into now, but the point of a story is to feel emotions - at the movies people want to laugh, to scream, to cry. Same thing for attractions - I walk into 'The Haunted Mansion' frightened, but by the end of it everyone's signing along with the happy ghosts. All the stuff about Master Gracey and the bride is pointless and meaningless to the story - the story being how I went from scared to happy.

It's a subtle point, but one that has a lot of importance. I'll try to explain it better later.

 

[musicotb]

I'm going to stick my neck in on this one...

I took my first trip to Epcot when I was 5, in 1988. Then, again in '91... and several times after that. I was a nerdy little kid and LOVED Epcot, and it didn't hurt that it was Dad's favorite and he was my hero.

What do I remember from being a kid? The Living Seas, first of all - I fell in LOVE with manatees when I was 8 - they were the coolest things EVER! I loved the divers in the tubes, and all the sea life. I also remember the smelly dinosaurs at the Universe of Energy, spaceship earth, the wonders of life (or whatever it's called), and all the 360 movies.

Fast forward to May, 2006. OMG, I love it even more! And my boyfriend who'd never been there before never wanted to leave. Why? Because of everything! Of course, even a glance at Mission: Space left DBF ill after our first and only ride, but I think we rode TT 4 times in our 2 days in Epcot. We LOVED Soarin', even though DBF is terrified of heights... it is a beautiful experience, especially since we can't afford to travel much and have never seen ANY of California. We rode The Land twice, and it's still great even though not much has changed over the years. The Living Seas was a HUGE disappointment... it was still neat, but not really for adults, and the best view of the big tank is from within the Coral Reef (too bad for those poor folks who didn't make reservations ). Love Figment, can never complain about Figment (even though it's total cheese), and Speacship Earth is still an awesome & relaxing ride, even with boyfriend freaking out about why we're going backward down a giant hill...

Onto the WS... LOVED IT even more as an adult. Our favorites? Well, considering we saw & rode everything, I think except for the America thing, were Norway, the Canada and China movies (France was cool too), El Rio of course(!), and most of all the street performers - isn't that really just one of the coolest things ever? The French comedians, the Japanese drummers, the Chinese acrobats, etc.? How cool are they????

Really, I say don't complain. Walt meant for Epcot to be constantly updated, and it is. Maybe not always for the better, and why it always seems that Universe of Energy and Wonders of Life are always closed (hence my lack of comments)... I consider myself lucky to get to go to WDW at all, and marvel at the amazing environment I'm in each time I'm there. DBF and I want to go back, and instead of criticizing, we'll just enjoy ourselves. It's good that they're updating ERDT, as the videos are pretty awful, and I do hope they don't put characters in there, but I'm sure we'll enjoy it still, nonetheless. Walt Disney World was created in a large part to cater to those looking to have a truly magical vacation, to thsoe families who save for what seems like a lifetime just to be able to afford to go. Maybe the problem is when you go too much, when you take the magic for granted, and stop looking at it through the eyes of a child. I LOVE WDW and respect their changes, and hope that I never lose that sparkle in my soul, that magic, that dream that is a day at a WDW park.

 

[dbm20th]

Really, I say don't complain.

Now what's the fun in that?

Seriously though, nice post. When I was a kid and Epcot first opened, I couldn't get out of their fast enough

25 years later and I never want to leave!

 

[raidermatt]

Hey, can't argue with an opinion because we all have them.

The only thing I'll say is that if you look objectively at when things in Epcot have been updated, especially WS, its going to be hard to convince people that it is being updated as intended (certainly not as Walt intended as the E.P.C.O.T. he envisioned wasn't even a theme park. But certainly those at Disney that did build EPCOT Center did try to incorporate his ideas and principles into it).

 

[MJMcBride]

Hey, can't argue with an opinion because we all have them.

The only thing I'll say is that if you look objectively at when things in Epcot have been updated, especially WS, its going to be hard to convince people that it is being updated as intended (certainly not as Walt intended as the E.P.C.O.T. he envisioned wasn't even a theme park. But certainly those at Disney that did build EPCOT Center did try to incorporate his ideas and principles into it).

I find very little of Walt's vision in the original Epcot Center and then only in Future World, particularly Communicore. World Showcase has nothing to do with the original intent

 

[Another Voice]

World Showcase has nothing to do with the original intent.

World Showcase was meant to be the downtown "entertainment/retail" section of EPCOT. You can find the original, Walt-era drawings of W.S. under the domed roof with PeopleMovers whisking happy guests overhead. I’ll have to check this, but I even think the the renderings made it an appearance in Walt's "Project X" film". Of all the sections of EPCOT, W.S. is probably the closest to what was intended for the original town.

The biggest mistake that people make about EPCOT is to assume that when Walt said "city" he meant a place like Detroit. Everything about it was to be a "resort town". The housing was meant for workers at Disney World and the associated Industrial Showcase; most of the "downtown area" was going to be focused on activities for WDW guests. If you've ever been to a ski development, you know what World Showcase was going to be - the "town" where all the retail and dining for the "resort" was going to focus.

EPCOT's World Showcase was such a strong concept that even after the community was dropped, W.S. stuck around. At one point it was to be a "Downtown Disney" like ungated development near the TTC (you can find concept art of the "double circle" design). At the time, Disney thought it was too small be a standalone park (my, how times have changed) and so the Industrial Showcase section of EPCOT was morphed into Future World at EPCOT Center and the two mini-parks welded together.

 

[PlainJane]

Taking into consideration the new Nemo ride and Journey into Imagination, I'm sure the imaginears at Disney will find a way to make it worse. At least it wasn't an amazing ride to begin with.

 

[Drizzo67]

Hopefully, its just a sprucing up of the ride and not a dramtic change. The first night of every trip we have taken to WDW starts with Dinner at San Angel Inn and a ride down ERDT. So sad it will not be running when we return in February.

Please.......no birds.

Dina Marie

 

[jackiema]

I called disney and they said that this ride is open also Rock n Roller coaster is open too.. any one else here that too

 

[MJMcBride]

W.S. is probably the closest to what was intended for the original town.

That may be but what Walt envisioned is a far cry from what we got. Don't get me wrong, I much prefer what we got, even if Donald takes over El Rio

 

[houseofmouse]

And, yes, the shopkeepers hustling their wares are an embarrassment.

This is my daughters favorite part....
BTW...Have you been to Mexico, thats how they sell there wares......

 

[mitros]

Laughingplace.com said today that El Rio DelTiempo made it's last run on December 31st under it's old show. It is supposedly closed now until April for the above mentioned rehab. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[reeeoga]

Disney website has it closed Jan. for refurb.

Thought the ride could use a refurb. I remember it being the same from my first trip in 83.

 

[ChrisFL]

Well I was at Epcot the other day and the ride is closed, walls put up behind the restaurant portion, though they luckily don't block the view of the pyramid and volcano too much.

I dont know how long it's down for or what changes are being made.

 

[mitros]

OK, just got back from a day trip, and yes, the walls are up. And it makes the restaurant area look really small. I guess without that extra depth produced by the body of water and the backdrop, the restaurant really does not look all that large. Must be that Imagineer forced perspective stuff.