its finaly comming down

[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?

 

[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) 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?

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.

 

[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.....

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]

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

 

[JPN4265]

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

 

[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.

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.

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!

MG

 

[AngieWin]

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