changes to World Showcase?

[MJMcBride]

World Showcase is about the history, culture, traditions, foods, architecture, art, and products of countries around the world.
A Mt. Fuji bobsled ride would say nothing about Japan.

I don't disagree at all really. I just mean to say that the area has not changed that much at all. I have heard the log flume ride as well as the boblsed ride rumors for awhil. I actually am not a thrill ride guy. I would much rather have more "cultural" type attractions. Although I do think another "Maelstrom" type ride might be good for the kids.

 

[DancingBear]

A-V or someone else with the history will have more details, but originally each pavillion had a significant attraction associated with it. I recall Great Britain was supposed to have a Music Hall of the late 19th century, and Japan or Italy was supposed to get a boat ride.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

The current World Showcase was designed for more than twenty pavilions. The idea is that each pavilion would blend directly into the next without any "greenspace" to separate the countries. And initially each pavilion would have had the same amount of space along the walkway (each county being equal to the others).

When EPCOT Center opened in 1982 there were a total of five pavilions already given the “go ahead”. As everyone knows, Morocco and Norway/Scandinavia were built. The three other pavilions were already designed and signs marking their locations were erected. Spain would have featured a vineyard and restaurants (the pavilion was dropped when Michael Eisner selected Paris over Barcelona for the site of Euro Disney). Equatorial Africa was just about ready to begin construction and its shows had already been filmed, but the pavilion was to have been funded by Disney and Michael Eisner cancelled those plans. The only sponsors available for an “African” pavilion were from South Africa – a place not acceptable in the 1980s. Lastly, it’s been “rumored” that Isreal was also dis-invited by Michael Eisner do to politics since the pavilion would have been sponsored by the tourism ministry of the Israeli government (thus endangering Disney’s business with other countries in the Mid East and Europe).

Two pavilions came close in the post-opening period. A “Russian” pavilion was designed during the brief period between the end of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet Union. Those plans died when the communist government collapsed and everyone realized they had better things to spend money on than a far off American tourist attraction. A Switzerland pavilion was contemplated for a while when Nestle (a Swiss company) was poking around for a big sponsorship deal. The center point would have been a clone of Disneyland’s Matterhorn Mountain (Disney’s always on the look-out for cheap thrill rides), but the Swiss opted for the much cheaper route of taking over sponsorship of ‘The Land’.

Other countries pop-up from time to time like Australia and Brazil, but nothing serious has happened for a long time. The edict from Michael Eisner not to spend any Disney money in Epcot remains in place. Any new pavilion will have to be bought and paid for by a sponsor. So far no companies really believe the value of sponsorship is equal to Disney’s asking price.

P.S. Yes, in the heydays there was a brief thought about building a second lagoon behind The American Adventure. At the far end would have been an Australian Outback Resort in roughly the spot where the Caribbean Beach is today.

VERY informative. Thanks for posting.

We need more countries!

 

[Another Voice]

This is a long one – you asked for it…

I recall Great Britain was supposed to have a Music Hall of the late 19th century, and Japan or Italy was supposed to get a boat ride.

For that several years it's always been very funny reading all the posts by people saying "Disney always builds their theme parks small and then fills them out over time". This is, of course, a complete and utter corporate lie – and EPCOT Center is a shinning example of how the "old" Disney did things right. Not only was EPCOT Center a huge park when it opened, there were already several expansions in the final stages of design already in the works on October 1, 1982.

I've already written about the 'Meet the World' and mountain rides for the Japan pavilion. The Germany pavilion was supposed to get a Rhine River cruise. In this attraction you'd float past scenes depicting the various myths and legends associated with the Rhine, see lots happy Germans stomping grapes for wine, and other "picturesque" scenes of the country side. The show building for the attraction was built, but the ride itself ran into sponsor trouble. The early 1980's was a "hot" period in the Cold War and Germany was stirred up with more than a little anti-American sentiment (anyone remember the protests over the Pershing missiles?). Disney decided to postpone the ride until they could find good corporate backing. There were also rumors that Disney management at the time really wasn't comfortable with the idea of a brewery sponsoring a Disney attraction. With the automotive sponsorship already taken by General Motors, there weren't a lot of other well-known German companies that need that type of expensive entertainment.

A concept for the England pavilion was for a dinner theater or a variety house (think vaudeville) from the Victorian era that offered a continuous show. I also recall a vague rumor about a "mini" Tower of London that would have housed a traveling collection of crown jewels. English vacationers make a big percentage of WDW's foreign guests; the trick was to find something that would appeal to them as well as to the American guests as well.

People also forget how big a deal the China pavilion was when it opened (again, the Cold War). There were very, very few American tourists to China at the time and most people were still trying to get used to saying "Bejing" instead of "Peking". The CircleVision film Disney created was one of the toughest films the studio ever created. You could hear people associated with the film talk about being surrounded by armed guards and how no Americans were allowed in the helicopters during the aerial photography (which was done by the People's Army). Disney was the first western film crew ever to have shot in some of the locations. There's been a lot of history in the last 25 years.

Over in FutureWorld, four additional pavilions were planned in addition to the ones on opening day. 'Horizons' (which was once called 'Century 3') had already had its groundbreaking. Shortly after that was to follow 'The Living Seas'. In addition to the main tank and Seabase Alpha, the pavilion was also going to have a 15 minute ride through various scenes showing different ocean locations, different marine life, and the ocean's potential for energy and mining. The show would have begun in a theater surrounded by a forty-foot waterfall and a thirty-foot high auto-animatronic figure of the god Poseidon.

A health pavilion was also in the works featuring an attraction called 'The Incredible Journey Within'. It would have been another omnimover type ride, a tour through the human body. This ride was originally planned to be ready for opening day and construction had started on some of the show sets. Sometime around this point WED began feel unsure about the ride and called for a break. Some people thought the story was too clinical and dry. There were technical problems with some of the effects (like how do you get a sixty foot heart to beat realistically). Some people didn't like the "ick" factor of giant sized blood vessels and organs. And no one could ever really figure out good places to enter and leave the body (how's that for an ick factor). The pavilion was pushed back into "Phase 2" while those issues were worked out.

Lastly there was the Space pavilion. This one had a hundred ideas – all of them expensive. Disney decided this was mostly likely to be the most popular pavilion in EPCOT Center and they wanted to get it right. With all of the company's resources stretched beyond their breaking point, they decided to wait until later this even start it.

So why did 'The Living Seas' get the pitiful SeaCabs instead of the gigantic God of the Sea?

Michael Eisner took over the Disney just two years after EPCOT Center opened. The management that designed and developed to park was thrown out of the company. Eisner…well, let's just say he had issues with EPCOT. Eisner had been running Paramount Studios and only knew about the movie business. He knew nothing about amusement park, and liked them even less.

Eisner came in with bold plans to make Disney Studios a major player in Hollywood and make twenty or more movies a year. Only he found out that Disney had just sunk all their money into this place in Florida for tourists to look at a knock-off of the Eiffel Tower (the grapevine story – almost certainly wrong – is that Eisner was supposed to have blurted out 'why don't they just go to France!? I go every year!").

Even more appalling was the length of time Disney was willing to wait to get its money back. EPCOT Center had been built with the ling term in mind – twenty, thrity, forty years. Eisner, from his movie background, expected to see the returns on his money instantly. You put fifty million into a movie, you get it all back and profit (hopefully) in the film's ten week theatrical release.

Lastly, Eisner just didn't get EPCOT. Another grapevine rumor was that Eisner had never been to any Disney park – ever – until he was offered the job as CEO. Eisner is not one to "mingle with the masses" at the best of times, and he is infamous for how high he believes his tastes are (foreshadowing all the problems with California Adventure). Eisner could see where factory tours and places like Williamsburg might be interesting, but EPCOT was just so, so, so middle class. It had a fake Venice and everything.

So Eisner began to work. He put an end to all future capital investments in EPCOT Center. He ripped out whatever he could that was already in the works. The African Pavilion (for which all the shows had already been filmed), gone. The Living Seas ride-through (already under construction), gone. Spain, gone. Refurbishment of Communicore, gone. Space, gone. Monorail expansion to the Disney Village, gone.

Then Eisner turned around and tried to find someone to buy the place. The concept was someone would purchase all of EPCOT Center. Every ride, every building, every tree. Disney would lease back the park and operate it. The buyer would collect annual rents and fees, Disney would have a whole lot of cash up front to spend on making movies.

Fortunately better minds prevailed. They focused on creating limited partnerships to fund the initial waves of movies. Disney would get the cash that way and trade off some of the profits on the back end. That's the "Silver Screen" credits you see at the beginning of the "early Eisner" movies like Three Men and a Baby.

While EPCOT was saved from the garage sale, Eisner never really warmed up to the place. The closet he got was when Met Life agreed to pay for 'The Wonders of Life'. Eisner leapt at the chance to make a "good" amusement park ride. He brought in all the big Hollywood talent – the gang from Saturday Night Live for 'Cranium Command', the director from the (then) uber-hip 'Moonlighting' TV show to teach little kiddies where babies came from, and he even got Mr. Spock himself to direct 'Body Wars'!! Eisner was sure the public was going to love it!!!

And to this day he has not forgiven you for the ho-hum reception you gave his brilliant pavilion.

 

[DancingBear]

Thanks, A-V.

 

[Luckymommyx2]

Thanks AV! I always find your posts informative and fascinating. Thanks again for taking the time to share.

 

[dbm20th]

Not only was EPCOT Center a huge park when it opened, there were already several expansions in the final stages of design already in the works on October 1, 1982.

The funny thing is that you can take this line an replace the word EPCOT with Animal Kingdom and you would be right on. Some of those plans were realized, some were not. And mostly for the same reasons you mention about EPCOT. In fact, the Beastly Kingdom section was all but built, there even exsists still some hints to it.

I think the important thing to remember is that Eisner is gone. Iger seems already to be much smarter and I have a lot of excitment about what Lssseter can bring. WDW has built some amazing things in the last 20 years, so I do not except this as a Dark Age at all, but there is reason to think a Golden Age may be just around the corner.

 

[2Xited4Disney]

One article I read about Lasseter stated his office was covered in Toys (Buzz+ MIke and Sully, etc) I believe this is the PERFECT fit for Disney. They need a "Child a heart" person who will make decisions based as a Fan of Disney and not as Corperate Business man.

 

[ChrisFL]

If you ever enjoyed the restaurant in Norway, you'll now find it changed to a meet the Princesses experience. That was a major change for us.

so no more norway restaurant at all???

that sucks, my parents loved to eat there at least once a year...last time we went they were only taking reservations far in advance...now its closed?

 

[sters]

I agree but I think 1 or 2 new lands would still keep enough "greenspace." I don't like the idea of 18 or 19 countries. Of course, 1 or 2 countries won't happen anyway. Sponsorship doesn't appear to be as easy to obtain as it used to be.

I do like the the idea of adding a country though. World Showcase has been kind of stagnant. Maybe just adding soemthing to an existing country. Like a Mt. Fuji bobsled ride or a flume in Canada would be enough.

The rumor I heard was that Canada is planning a flume ride in their pavillion. But I heard this two years ago, so who knows?

 

[daber]

so no more norway restaurant at all???

that sucks, my parents loved to eat there at least once a year...last time we went they were only taking reservations far in advance...now its closed?

No the restaurant is there, you just have to put up with the Princesses coming around the tables.

 

[dbm20th]

The rumor I have heard the most surrounds an attraction in Japan that seems to be similar to the Meet the World thing AV talks about. AV, was this the one that they built a building for in WS? And just recently closed in Tokyo, or at least somewhat recently?

 

[DancingBear]

The funny thing is that you can take this line an replace the word EPCOT with Animal Kingdom and you would be right on. Some of those plans were realized, some were not. And mostly for the same reasons you mention about EPCOT.

Not exactly. I don't think you could say AK was a huge park when it opened. And the availability of financing is a lot different for the huge late 90's Disney vs. the early 80's Disney.

 

[dbm20th]

Not exactly. I don't think you could say AK was a huge park when it opened. And the availability of financing is a lot different for the huge late 90's Disney vs. the early 80's Disney.

Of course I can, AK is largest park in WDW, and was upon openeing.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Of course I can, AK is largest park in WDW, and was upon openeing.

AK was (and is) huge in terms of the number of acres. AK was not (and still is not) huge in terms of the number of attractions.

When AK opened, the only rides were the safari, the train, the river boats (now gone), and Countdown to Extinction (now Dinosaur). Four rides, and that includes the boats! There were also several shows: the Tough to Be a Bug 3-D movie, the bird show, and Lion Ling show, the Jungle Book show, and the Pocahontas animal show. In fairness, the animal exhibits are also attractions. A few rides have been added since then, including the rafts, the Dino carnival rides, and recently Everest.

In comparsison, Epcot really was a huge, full-fledged theme park from day one.

 

[dbm20th]

AK was (and is) huge in terms of the number of acres. AK was not (and still is not) huge in terms of the number of attractions.

When AK opened, the only rides were the safari, the train, the river boats (now gone), and Countdown to Extinction (now Dinosaur). Four rides, and that includes the boats! There were also several shows: the Tough to Be a Bug 3-D movie, the bird show, and Lion Ling show, the Jungle Book show, and the Pocahontas animal show. In fairness, the animal exhibits are also attractions. A few rides have been added since then, including the rafts, the Dino carnival rides, and recently Everest.

In comparsison, Epcot really was a huge, full-fledged theme park from day one.

True enough, but it can be argued that AK was a much more difficult and larger undertaking for Disney. What was EPCOT when it opened? A theme park. It had restaurants, shops, AA rides, movies, etc., etc. All things Disney was very familiar with. Dealing with live animals, however, was something totally alien to them. They needed to gain a knowledge that was so far beyond what they were made of that it seems incredible that they ever did it.

When you gloss over the animals factor, you gloss over what made AK such a huge thing for Disney, and what can be argued as the reason why it was the biggest and most difficult undertaking for a group of theme park/movie folks.

 

[ChrisFL]

No the restaurant is there, you just have to put up with the Princesses coming around the tables.

Oh ok I can deal with that, as long as I don't hurl
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Im KIDDING!!!!

 

[raidermatt]

The funny thing is that you can take this line an replace the word EPCOT with Animal Kingdom and you would be right on. Some of those plans were realized, some were not.

AK opened with less, had less actually in the works, and less in the planning stages.

It is true that much of what was planned for AK was axed. However, that's not exactly the part of the Epcot Center story that AK should be proud of copying.

Take the "Eisner" parks (post-EuroDisney) as a whole, and its pretty clear the start with less and finish with less strategy is king now. MGM, AK, DCA, DSP, and HKDL all opened with far less than the old Disney would have allowed, given the resources available. Yes, additions are made, but at a much slower pace, and with a much lower finishing mark in site.

Epcot started with the old strategy, but then fell victim to the changes. There's really not much of a parallel to draw, either in intent or in execution, until you get to plans being axed.


And yes, to address the original topic, I would love to see new countries added and believe it would even be in Disney's best long term interest to actually pay for this to happen. It is, after all, their park and product.

Sponsorships are fine, but when the well is dry, and your business still needs updating, its time to re-think things.

 

[YoHo]

AK opened with less, had less actually in the works, and less in the planning stages.

It is true that much of what was planned for AK was axed. However, that's not exactly the part of the Epcot Center story that AK should be proud of copying.

Take the "Eisner" parks (post-EuroDisney) as a whole, and its pretty clear the start with less and finish with less strategy is king now. MGM, AK, DCA, DSP, and HKDL all opened with far less than the old Disney would have allowed, given the resources available. Yes, additions are made, but at a much slower pace, and with a much lower finishing mark in site.

Epcot started with the old strategy, but then fell victim to the changes. There's really not much of a parallel to draw, either in intent or in execution, until you get to plans being axed.


And yes, to address the original topic, I would love to see new countries added and believe it would even be in Disney's best long term interest to actually pay for this to happen. It is, after all, their park and product.

Sponsorships are fine, but when the well is dry, and your business still needs updating, its time to re-think things.

1: Akerhaus also has a different menu too.

2: As was said earlier, Epcot center may have not been as challenging in the absolute sense, but considering the financial situation of the company in the late 70's versus what it was in the mid 90s, Epcot is a much, much, much larger challenge.

 

[dbm20th]

2: As was said earlier, Epcot center may have not been as challenging in the absolute sense, but considering the financial situation of the company in the late 70's versus what it was in the mid 90s, Epcot is a much, much, much larger challenge.

Sounds like you're coming dangerously close to paying the Dr. Evil (Eisner) a compliment.

What you are doing is comparing a financial challenge to a creative one, which is impossible to do, and coming to a conclusion, which is your opinion. Shockingly, I don't agree