Disney Theme Parks: Today vs. Yesterday

[MelissathePooh]

We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess

 

[Another Voice]

"the attractions in FW were not built to accomodate that."

Actually, this too is completely false and utterly wrong.

In fact, the sponsorship contracts required the pavilions be updated every ten years at a minimum. Epcot's heavily reliance on film-based attractions and film elements in attractions was meant to make this process easier. The attractions themselves were more "set like" than most of the other large attractions so that entire scenes could be removed reworked and reintroduced (much like a theatrical show changes sets). CommuniCore was designed explicitly to be continually updated.

But of course The Big Lie is that the designers are now to fault instead of the people who failed to live up to the contracts.

And naturally The Big Lie must overlook the fact that even small overlays can radically change an attraction and vastly improve its popularity – anyone who has gone on the Nightmare Before Chirstmas 'Haunted Mansion' or the Holiday 'It's a Small World[/I] can tell you that. Even adding Ellen to 'Energy' created a bump; imagine what could have been accomplished if they worked hard on that one?

With good people a simple redress of 'Horizons' could have accomplished the same thing.

But that requires talent and hard work. It's much easier to spend the big bucks on cheap thrills (like 'Test Track' is a timeless attraction?) than it is on real quality.

 

[d-r]

So av now you are saying that there is not any flaw in theming an area of a park to the "future" - what was it Lisa Simpson said about ecpot...something like "what they thought the 1980s would look like in the 1960s..." I guess she was off a couple of decades, but I've heard and read several people who agree that the idea of theming an area to the future is a limiting concept - whether it was tomorrowland or futureworld - because the future always passes the ideas of today by. No problem for you, though, just slap a cheap overlay over it and you'd have instant future. "Actually, this too is completely false and utterly wrong." The basic idea that theming something to the "future" is a difficult one as time passes by really isn't that hard a concept for most people to grasp, though, no matter how wrong you may think it is.

Whatever, keep going with it if you want to.

 

[EUROPA]

Why is the theme wrong? Because the future changes? They didn't get it all right? Some of the stuff was wrong. I just don't understand what you and your wife are getting at. "The future changes and is impossible to predict so we should not try?"

 

[MelissathePooh]

While I do whole-heartedly believe the theming is very flawed, and don't see how the FW attractions are that set like and easy to make over, I will stand corrected.

I absolutely agree that makeovers - even simple can do a world of good. DL's HM is definitely an example - although it isn't a permanent.

Out of curiosity, why then did the sponsors not pull out of the pavilons long before now as the contracts were so clearly violated?

 

[d-r]

Europa, come on. Seriously. Do you really not get this ""what they thought the 1980s would look like in the 1960s?" Has it never occured to you why tomorrowland wdw was re-done as "the future that never was," or why discoveryland in Paris follows the Jules Verne theming, or why discovery island in disney seas is basically some wind twirlies and a spin around feaux boat ride thing and a motion simulator, or why disneyland in California needs to be completely shut down so something can be put in there by the 50th anniversay that won't look to most folks like it was there for 50 years?

Nothing ages quite like the future. Nothing is as lame and dorky looking as what was thought of as futuristic - I mean like the lame 80s looking fiber optics in space ship earth, etc. People complain about how lame the "future sea base alpha" is, etc.

 

[crusader]

The problem with a Futuristic themeing is that the public is too smart to buy into anything not relatively perceptual. Not only do you have a perpetual moving target due to time, you have to incorporate a believable window to look through. The age of technology has made this a virtually impractical forum to develop and sustain without investing heavily and repeatedly.

EPCOT fails in several components. It is too massive an entity to explore in a simple way. Young families cannot possible endure the length of certain venues. Their children have difficulty connecting with many aspects of the place which is why it seems boring to them. Their most enjoyable areas of Disneyworld are the theme park elements complete with rides and characters and the resort activities. Take them to educational venues and you've lost your future target audience. They don't want to spend their time there.

This needs to be revamped in order to succeed. We go once and sit through many things but the next time, we'll be more inclined to attend something less enduring.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by d-r

Nothing ages quite like the future. Nothing is as lame and dorky looking as what was thought of as futuristic - I mean like the lame 80s looking fiber optics in space ship earth, etc. People complain about how lame the "future sea base alpha" is, etc. [/B]

When Epcot was opened where they complaining then?

 

[Another Voice]

It's because the future is an ever changing "theme" that EPCOT Center was designed for constant revisions. That was the point of the place – a place to see all the stuff that was cutting edge, new and interesting. A place to actually touch and see all stuff you heard about. Much like the Magic Kingdom is a movie come to life, Epcot was supposed to be where The Discovery Channel came to life.

But they've turned into a place that seems only intered in making you puke your guts out from attractions to strangly flavored Coca-Cola products.

In 1982 how many American homes had a computer? How many had satellite televisions? How many people were eating genetically altered foods? Who had heard of the Internet? Who's fault is it if the future caught up?

Eisner oozed into the company just a few years after EPCOT Center opened. He's overseen everything that it's become – he's far more to blame for leaving the "cutting edge" place in the Regan era than the original designers. Even the stuff he's built hasn't been changed – isn't it about time 'Wonders of Life' gets something new?

Any park requires new shows to remain popular. How many times would you go your local Cineplex they continued to show the same movies from 1982?

"or why disneyland in California needs to be completely shut down so something can be put in there by the 50th anniversay that won't look to most folks like it was there for 50 years?

Actaully, Disneyland's Tomorrowland is shut down because the 1997 change to the WDW "The Future That Never Was" was a complete and utter failure. There is absolutely nothing of the "this is the future" left in the place except for a half-a## copy of Innoventions. The place is shut down because the centerpiece attraction, 'Rocket Rods' was so cheaply constructed it fell about in less then two years, because 'Space Mountain' was so poorly maintained it is falling apart as I type this, 'Star Tours' hasn't had a new destination since it opened because Eisner has screwed-up his relationship with everyone in Hollywood, the subs & skyway are gone because the money was needed to bail out ABC, and 'Honey I Shrunk The Audience' is all but closed because after the third viewing that show looses what little appeal it had to start with.

The only thing left over from Pressler's "New Tomorrowland" is the refurbished (oopps, that couldn't possibly work for Epcot) Autopia. And that's only open because Chevron pays for it, and they only pay for it because oil companies need any kind of good exposure they can buy no matter the price.

"EPCOT fails in several components. It is too massive an entity to explore in a simple way. Young families cannot possible endure the length of certain venues."

Classic – so the solution is to replace those attractions with height limits so the young families are booted from the ride in the first place. Yea, a lot of young families that couldn't "endure" 'Horizons' are going to happy about puking over 'Space'.

Oh – it's bad because it takes a full day to see. That's classic too. It seems like from the public's reception to Animal Kingdom and California Adventure they want a full day park (but what to they know). Even the French don't like their mini-park. And yet you say they hate Epcot because it's "too big"? I'll have to add another BIG LIE to the list.

"Take them to educational venues and you've lost your future target audience."

But the goal of Epcot was to make the real world as entertaining as the fantasy one. Yes, it's a tall order and difficult to achieve. But at least they tried. Today's company can’t even attempt to be entertaining, much less challenging.

But they will sell you all the snow globes you want…

 

[crusader]

Classic – so the solution is to replace those attractions with height limits so the young families are booted from the ride in the first place. Yea, a lot of young families that couldn't "endure" 'Horizons' are going to happy about puking over 'Space'.

It wouldn't be to get a child interested. The problem is you have to get the rest of us to come back to the venues. I say, you absolutely must install something less time consuming, and much more interesting and thrilling to entice more than the low keyed adult population.

Oh – it's bad because it takes a full day to see. That's classic too.

It's bad because it is not enjoyable enough to sit through all of the exhibits time and time again. Who feels like attending solely those types of attractions? If they really wanted the guests to regularly frequent the park, they should provide more of a variety beyond the 25 minute dissertation. These venues in their original form failed to maintain enough of our interest to keep us coming back for more.

 

[crusader]

I want to expand on this a bit further because it should be addressed in a much more detailed manner.

EPCOT's future world fails in the themeing aspect for all the reasons noted.

EPCOT's future world fails in the attendance aspect for more reasons beyond themeing.

It fails in basic design. I'll use Universe of Energy as an example. This exhibit has only one component. You must wait until each run completes a cycle before you can enter the attraction. That takes a great deal of waiting. Then you sit through a film before you get to the dinosaur exhibit.

Yeah, it's cool. But it's a lengthy and enduring process. If you break that down into more than one segment, the guest could enter the building and immediately attend something.

Horizons and World of Motion used to be designed in a very slow moving format as well - and they quickly became outdated and lost their appeal.

Once you go through this "ordeal", you are not inclined to again -at least not for the majority of them. You wind up hand selecting those you favor and avoid anything not considered remotely worthwhile.

The company really did need to move beyond this style of attraction and incorporate more versatility into this portion of the park.

 

[EUROPA]

There seem to be a lot of Disney revisionist on the boards these days. As I recall Epcot did not have any of these "problems, or issues" until the attractions sat there un-updated. There were not attendance problems in the first 10-12 years of Epcot.

 

[crusader]

As I recall Epcot did not have any of these "problems, or issues" until the attractions sat there un-updated.

There's your problem. How do you "update" Universe of Energy, Imagination and The Living Seas without completely reconstructing the exhibit?

Putting Ellen in the movie and Figment back and different marinelife in the tank are not changing what these exhibits are enough to get us to want to keep coming back. We don't feel like enduring these types of venues beyond once in a while because of how they are designed to accomodate us - not just because of the "show". They have to repeatedly convince the guest it is worth it for them to sit through something which takes over an hour of their time.

And why is it that EPCOT is the one park which seems to require this in order to maintain a guests interest? It is because of the theme - future and technology AND the overall design of the venues. The Magic Kingdom has not had to tear down and redo the attractions in order to keep its attendance.

Future World was not a cost effective project at all. It suffers as a result of this.

 

[EUROPA]

It is just amazing what this board will do to protect Eisner.

You vilify the concept of a theme park that should (and needs) to be updated to keep people interested yet you cheer the guy that lets it sit there and rot. Also cheering him for not updating other parks as well.

This is Classic.

 

[crusader]

Ah yes - the old Eisner card.

Forget the fact that 5 years into EPCOT the venue lines began to shrink more and more and more. Why was that?

It is because and I will repeat - we were not going to subject ourselves to that type of attraction anymore than we absolutely had to.

 

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by crusader
There's your problem. How do you "update" Universe of Energy, Imagination and The Living Seas without completely reconstructing the exhibit?

How will they update Test Track and Mission Space? A thrill ride is nearly impossible to update once it has been built. Two of the three attractions you mentioned have been updated, one of them was updated twice.

 

[Planogirl]

Besides, before someone says that Imagination was updated twice and still isn't going over, the Imagination updates were done very poorly. If a bit of true imagination had been applied to this pavilion, there's no telling what type of attraction it might have now.

As for Epcot only having two thrill rides, isn't Time Racers expected to be another one? The way I see it, that leaves three newer thrill rides and a handful of neglected pavilions plus a very poorly redone Imagination.

It does interest me that Future World might have been a bad concept from the beginning. If so, where does one go now with Epcot? Should it even have a theme?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Forget the fact that 5 years into EPCOT the venue lines began to shrink more and more and more. Why was that?

Mr. Crusader,

I know we've talked about this before, and I think a lot of 'hedge' room has already been given, but this last little bit kinda sent me over the edge. SO!! I really gotta ask. Just where did you glean such a thing? 5 years into it? Really? Please back it up!!

Ah yes - the old Eisner card.

Why do you discount it so quickly. The guy never even gave it a chance. He NEVER understood the place and consequently let it go to seed.

I could understand your contempt for the park if it had been planned, implemented and failed. But that's not the case. It was planned, these was absolutely NO implementation and, of course, it failed. How couldn't it fail!!??

Do you really think that just because you can't envision it, there is no way on earth it could have worked?!? WOW!! I wonder if you were that omnipotent when Pirates went in. Or when Walt started Disneyland and virtually EVERYONE (including his own nephew) was laughing at him!! Or would you have thrown in with Roy Jr.?

 

[raidermatt]

And why is it that EPCOT is the one park which seems to require this in order to maintain a guests interest?

How would MGM be doing without the additions of RnRC, ToT, Millionaire, and Fantasmic? (and the subesquent updates to ToT).

AK has gone through a "few" changes of its own, since opening, though attendance continues to be a problem.

Even MK/DL get periodic updates and additions, though the rate and scope have dropped in recent years.

Perhaps a better question would be to ask how Epcot could remain the 3rd most attended park in the country with so few substantial updates/additions over the last 15 years...

What do you think AK's attendance would look like 15 years from now with a similar lack of attention?

 

[DC7800]

I hardly know where to begin. So,

Originally posted by raidermatt
Perhaps a better question would be to ask how Epcot could remain the 3rd most attended park in the country with so few substantial updates/additions over the last 15 years

If Epcot Center really was such a poor concept to begon with, it just has to be the most successful "bad idea" in human history! Of course, Epcot was certainly not a poor concept. The Epcot pavilions of 1982 succeeded (and then some) in proving that real-world "educational" subjects are just as interesting (or more so, such as what Mission:Space could have been) as the "fantasy" realm over in the MK. In fact, were it not so successful (and that success was driven by the quality, innovation, and effort that went into the original product) the park would have begun to suffer long before twenty years (note California Adventure).

Forget the fact that 5 years into EPCOT the venue lines began to shrink more and more and more. Why was that?

Forgive me for getting all worked up over this, but exactly what does queue (venue) line length have to do with the popularity of an attraction anyway? You cannot judge popularity by line length. High capactity, fast-loading rides tend, for these reasons, to not develop much of a line - and many of the original Epcot attractions fit into this category. Sure, a "mob" will overwhelm the loading for a time, such as most any new attraction or Spaceship Earth in the morning. The Haunted Mansion utilizes a basically similar slow-moving, high-capacity ride system, but I don't see anyone complaining about not "subject(ing) ourselves to that type of attraction anymore than we absolutely had to" (and the wait to actually board the ride vehicle portion is seldom very long).