Jim Hill article on Project Gemini

[mjstaceyuofm]

You can read the article on Jim Hill's website. http://www.jimhillmedia.com/main/index.htm It's the feature article for February 19th, 2003.

I will admit, this does sound pretty amazing*, but as most of you are aware, any idea proposed by the imagineers rarely, if ever, makes it to the parks in it's "dreamed up" state. Even Mr. Hill admits that this is just the concept and idea for the redo of FW at Epcot. He has some info about how the plan went over with the former head of parks - Paul Pressler. Basically, it didn't. It would cost a ton of $ and right now Disney is not in the spending mode... Hopefully things will turn around with Jay Rasulo and the company in general, they'll have extra capital available to do this and all will be good.

Realistically, I don't think so (like I need to tell you people that, I've learned a TON about Disney since I've been reading & posting here...) It would mean a gigantic transformation in 3 years and with the talk of hosting the 50 years of theme parks celebration at Epcot in 2005, I don't see how they could accomplish this.

Oh well... one can dream...

*Note: Let me qualify my "amazing" sentiment: Yes, I'm sure we can debate all day about the fact that the concept has an off-the-shelf ride, ride clones (i.e. Soarin', Autopia), and a hedge-maze, but it still does not curb my enthusiasm that Disney has ideas and concepts out there to completely redo a large section of a park, essentially trying to break a rut Disney got themselves into by leaving a section of the park dedicated to the future untouched for years on end. I guess, when it comes to Disney, all one can be anymore is hopeful...

 

[daannzzz]

I like the concept and the idea of getting rid of the neon and constantly self dating architecture and accoutrements. All the greenery and pathways sound great. I don't have a problem with changing some of the attractions. I do have aproblem with what they want to change them with. Suspended coasters, autopias and items to trhill the under 18 crowd don;t sound to imaginative to me.

 

[meowthew2]

I LOVE this plan. I mean REALLY love it. While an "off-the-shelf" coaster in front of the Land isn't too thrilling sounding, the ideas for lush landscaping, a hedge maze (sounds a lot like the original Fantasia Gardens), Jr. Autopia, and a new home for the CoP AAs (which I had heard others talking about before) are very appealing to me. Plus, from the plan shown it looks like the awful Leave a Legacy area would be done away with...

 

[WEDWAY100]

While these ideas are not as ambitious as the original Epcot Center, neither was Epcot Center as ambitious as Walt's EPCOT city.

I have to say that I like the proposed changes better than what is there now, which is a mix of the old ideas with some very poorly applied changes. But none of this matters because I predict that they will never spend the money to do this whole thing right. We will either see none of it, or perhaps pieces of it. Example: Forget the architectural re-do and all of the landscaping. Put in the off-the-shelf coaster and soarin’ clone. Remove WoL pavilion. Put out marketing campaign about new DiscoveryLand.

 

[Another Voice]

Hmmm…

So now they want to move the Tarzan coaster to Epcot? Boy, these plans get cheaper everyday.

Not that any of this will ever happen, but if one’s just going to daydream why not go for something big?

 

[toefungus]

I agree, the whole plan sounds good execpt for the coaster by the land pavillion. It just doens't seem to fix Epcot.

 

[raidermatt]

First, a kudo...

I've even heard talk that the Mouse is giving semi-serious thought to actually shutting down each of WDW's theme parks for one day each week. At least 'til the war with Iraq is over and/or tourist traffic patterns for the Orlando theme parks get back to normal.

Several months ago AV told us this was being considered...


As for the plans themselves, should they somehow come to pass...

Let's check the scorecard:

In- Time Racers, Rainforest Coaster, Soarin, Hedgemaze, Under the Sea, Jr. Autopia

Out- Ages of Man, Cranium Command, Body Wars, current Living Seas.

Clearly a "win" for teens/pre-teens, as is the intent.

Motion Averse, or too short? You get a Hedgemaze, and a revamped Under the Sea pavilion. You lose Ages of Man and Cranium Command. Depending on execution, probably a net loss, though an incredible Under the Sea pavilion could make it a wash. Leaving 'Life' open with CC would make a difference.


Other random, or not so random, thoughts:

As has been the recent trend, the additions are weighted at the two extremes of the spectrum. Either height-restricted thrill rides, or kiddie appeal stuff. Under the Sea and the Hedgemaze have the potential to have whole family appeal, but it depends on execution.

At least there are some additions and not just replacements.

When is someone considered pre-teen? 11? So, the pre-teen/teen target of this plan encompasses ages 11-19. Does it REALLY make sense to focus so much of your limited resources on this group?

I don't like the idea of forgoing the future because its too expensive.

Not sure what to make of the landscape changes. Obviously doesn't fit Future World as well, but then again, it wouldn't be Future World anymore.

Lastly, its good to hear that at least Rasulo seems to understand investment in the parks is a necessary occurence. Though as we knew all along, its still Eisner's call.

 

[DisneyKidds]

When is someone considered pre-teen? 11? So, the pre-teen/teen target of this plan encompasses ages 11-19. Does it REALLY make sense to focus so much of your limited resources on this group?

I not saying they should or shouldn't target this group in an Epcot redo, but from a Disney perspective it makes very good sense. The 15 year old's of today (ok, 2006) will be the 30 year olds that Disney wants taking their kids to WDW in 2021. If they can't do something to make the current teen/preteen generation fall in love with Epcot is could be as damaging in the long term as all the other "mistakes" that have been made over the past 5 years. Such a redo would please most of the current adult generation as most would be happy to see a revitalized Epcot

I think the ideas for Discoveryland are cool and I'd love to see it. Unfortunately I doubt it will all happen. I hope I am wrong.

 

[raidermatt]

The 15 year old's of today (ok, 2006) will be the 30 year olds that Disney wants taking their kids to WDW in 2021.

But what has changed about this dynamic? Really, haven't the teens always been a problem? Its not that Disney never thought of addressing the issue, they just chose not to because its difficult to address it without hurting the rest of the Disney crowd.

The common theory has been that parents take their young children to Disney. Once the children become teens, the trips become less frequent, as Disney is "not for them". Then, those teens become young adults with kids, and they are back at Disney. Further, the now grandparents are looking for "whole family" entertainment as well.

So, under this model, Disney "has you" until you are 11 or 12, then gets you back from say, 25 on, with maybe another gap when your kids are teens.

Certainly it would be perfect if they could get the teens ALSO, but no way does it make sense to go after them at the expense of others.

Now, a thrill ride does not keep non-teens away, but when the funds that could be used for the new Pirates, HM, SE, etc are instead used on thrill rides, the classic Disney market is not getting the new and exciting additions to keep them coming back.

The very real danger is that you could lose more guests, and also higher spending guests, than you gain.

I know we have been through this before, and I know there are exceptions...like 40 year olds that would rather have 7 or 8 thrill rides instead of 7 or 8 Pirates. But there are also 15 year olds who can't stand thrill rides. The point is that the categories on average have certain characteristics, and this hasn't really changed. What thrills a thill-seeker may have changed, but the fact that Disney families want whole-family entertainment has not.

 

[DisneyKidds]

But what has changed about this dynamic?

Nothing, you are correct. However, perhaps this dynamic has helped to lead Epcot Future World to the run down, outdated status it holds today.

Think about this. Epcot opened in 1982. If a family had a 5 year old then, he'd be about 25 now. We know that Disney attendance has been suffering the past few years. Is that generation of kids that Disney decided not to go after in Epcot now becoming a generation of 25 year olds that isn't coming back? Perhaps Disney is feeling some growing pains in that regard and the old dynamic isn't going to work in the future.

they just chose not to because its difficult to address it without hurting the rest of the Disney crowd.

Future World is just half of one of 4 parks. Future World is clearly not working up to any potential right now. It is old, run down, and underutilized. Even the "older" crowd isn't filling Future World and it is hard to imagine Future World attendance going down, even if a change included more thrill rides than not. Would you rather see that dynamic and trend continue, or would you rather see something like Discoveryland as the imagineers would have it?

I know, I know - not at the expense of the other parks. Well, Disney should do something to bring Epcot back to it's glory while they are also keeping the other parks moving forward. Wouldn't a Discoveryland announcement coupled with a Forbidden Mountain announcement be a beautiful thing. A guy can dream, can't he? Alas, I do believe that all of this is pie in the sky stuff as I don't see Disney opening up the coffers.

 

[morphi]

The point is that the categories on average have certain characteristics, and this hasn't really changed.

If we are talking about what interests, impresses, and entertains kids 6-10, I think it may have changed a little since the 1970s and even 1980s. I know it's a cliche, but kids grow up faster today than they did 20-30 years ago. An 8 year-old in 1975 would have loved and fondly remembered Pirates of the Caribbean. I don't know if that is true today as much as it was back then. (Certainly POTC interests, impresses, and entertains kids today, but I don't think in as large of percentages.) My 8 year old nephew has raved about Adventures of Spider Man, but I have never heard him speak of POTC or any other such ride. Of course, I should not extrapolate from my own limited experiences.

But this seems to be in line with what we hear sociologists saying about kids today. They are more grown-up and experienced than same-aged kids from 20-30 years ago. They are more independent from their parents, have more money, make more financial decisions, enter puberty sooner, start to diet sooner, worry about appearance and social acceptance sooner, see more violence on TV, survive more divorces, swear at an earlier age, know more about sex at an earlier age, are more marketing savvy, have seen better special effects and have greater entertainment options (cable, video games, home theater, etc.) than the previous generations.

This doesn't mean that all 6-12 year olds want to ride TOT. What it does mean, is that it is harder to impress, interest, and entertain them than it used to be. And Disney needs to grab these kids aged 6-10 because it seems to me that it is the memories that are created during this time that they look back on with warm fuzzies when THEY are parents. (I don't think that is as true for kids 1-5 and 13-18.) Kids are more critical and discerning today. That means Disney cannot rely on the same rides that impressed kids 20-30 years ago to impress kids today. Compared to 20-30 years ago, what percentage of 8 year olds loves Dumbo, Peter Pan, It's a Small World, and Tea Cups? I bet it's smaller now than it used to be. That spells trouble for Disney.

And if kids 6-10 are growing up faster, that means that the way to impress, interest, and entertain them more closely matches the way to interest, impress, and entertain pre-teens and teens. It certainly means that the attractions need to be more elaborate. It may also mean that Disney needs faster more thrilling rides. However, I agree that the rides should still be able to be enjoyed by the whole family TOGETHER. Big Thunder Mountain Railroad seems to be a good example of a ride that is somewhat thrilling, well themed, and able to be enjoyed by the whole family (if the kids are over 5).

 

[HB2K]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what has changed about this dynamic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nothing, you are correct. However, perhaps this dynamic has helped to lead Epcot Future World to the run down, outdated status it holds today

Sorry Kidds....the reason EPCOT is struggling is because of the decades of neglect....

 

[meowthew2]

Whether it's true or not, current conventional wisdom says that kids and teens have more spending cash on hand than any other demographic -- Disney's just responding to that. Can't fault them for wanting to make more money.

 

[raidermatt]

Future World is clearly not working up to any potential right now. It is old, run down, and underutilized.

Oh, I completely agree. Certainly there is still some worthwhile stuff (after all, Epcot still drew 8 million last year), but the key is most of it is old and underutilized.

Is that generation of kids that Disney decided not to go after in Epcot now becoming a generation of 25 year olds that isn't coming back? Perhaps Disney is feeling some growing pains in that regard and the old dynamic isn't going to work in the future.

But see, this is my point. The ARE NOT using the same strategy to get those 25-30 year olds to come back with their kids. The problem is they have let Epcot stagnate, and that was never the intention. If they had continued updating and adding non-thrill attractions, including E-tickets, on some kind of regular basis, and Epcot was still failing, I could understand the shift.

But they haven't been updating. They abandoned that plan. Now, they tell us the failing attendance means the plan that they weren't using anyway doesn't work???? Am I the only one who sees the problem with this logic?


Morphi, I see your point, and I don't disagree with it. Disney couldn't just open a Pirates clone over in Epcot with a different story and expect kids (and adults for that matter) to be as excited as folks were about the original. They do need to to be creative and original to really excite the 6-10 year olds. But it can be done without flips, inversions, and the associated height requirements. The 3d movies are a good example. I think they are overdoing it with these (one if every park), but nonetheless, these are examples of edgier attractions that don't exclude the motion averse or require guests to be of a certain height.

It can be done, you just can't buy it off the shelf.

 

[raidermatt]

Whether it's true or not, current conventional wisdom says that kids and teens have more spending cash on hand than any other demographic -- Disney's just responding to that. Can't fault them for wanting to make more money.

I'll eat my words if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is true. 18-49 continues to be the demographic sought by networks because its what advertisers are looking for....because this is who has the discretionary income.

I'm sure teens have more spending cash than they used to, but so does every other demographic. Its still the adults that shell out for the rooms, sit-down dinners, collectibles, etc.

 

[Figmentrocks]

"Whether it's true or not, current conventional wisdom says that kids and teens have more spending cash on hand than any other demographic -- Disney's just responding to that. Can't fault them for wanting to make more money."

I must jump into the consersation, I just can't help myself. The teens and kids spending money is one of the greatest cons in marketing & business reporting. My company specializes in products that are a magnet for teens, but the truth of the matter is that the spending power is with those 34-54.

It underscores the dueling Disney mindset of the past several days. They want to cater to kids and teens, but the spending power comes from the adults. You keep turning everything into a thrill attraction or a kids only attraction, grandma and grandpa give up.

If the plans of Jim Hill come to reality, it'll be excellent to see Epcot reborn in a way. It's a shame that yet another classic AA ride (Spaceship Earth) would go to the Yesterland archives, but the plans seem sound and exciting. Without getting into an debate of sorts of Leave a Legacy, when you enter the park now, it just looks dull, depressing, and cold stoned. Some one say it looks like you're entering a graveyard..

 

[Douglas Dubh]

I really don't think "Project Gemini" is necessary. All they really need to do is start adding one new thing, or revamping one old thing, each year. If they do go ahead with PG, I don't see any reason why it could be phased in - just start adding more trees and revamping areas and adding new attractions.

I'd hate to see them spend the next 5 years redoing FW, and neglect WS. Some of the movies need to be replaced, and some new rides added - like something in Japan or UK or Germany. They don't have to be e-tickets - just nice family rides that tell something about the country they're in.

And I'd much rather see Soarin used in WS, either in an existing country or a new one (like Australia). They should put Stormrider in FW.

 

[DC7800]

I was already composing an epic-length response to this utterly insane idea to completely dismember Epcot Center (or, what's left of it. Now, that couldn't be part of the problem, could it?) when something struck me.

Originally posted by Another Voice
if one’s just going to daydream why not go for something big?

The thought that intriqued me was that this plan - Project Gemini - simply can't be the best idea WDI can come up with. If so, these are the same people who developed DisneySeas? The same company which designed Epcot two decades ago? Unbelievable.

Consider what we would get out of this dismantling of Future World. One true E-ticket, admittedly, but its a thrill ride, not the sort of thing to appeal to many of Epcot's (and, notably, World Showcase) most loyal guests. Beyond that all we have are an off-the-shelf coaster, a Soarin' clone from DCA, a hedge maze, Autopia Jr., and a redo of The Living Seas. Everything else mentioned in the Jim Hill piece is presumably minor (Home of the Future, "Leading Edge") or landscaping alterations (this part could actually be implemented at a decent cost, and without destroying the park in the process). In the end we even lose a pavilion - Wonders of Life.

I'm sure the answer to my question is no; perhaps this is just the one plan which wasn't so outrageously expensive management wouldn't even sit still to watch one of those Powerpoint presentations we've heard about. Still, I would much rather hear about some of WDI's more impressive dreams. Granted, they have no hope of being considered under current management, but "small" plans like this have no power to stir the imagination. Epcot needs such big plans to restore the wonder and excitement once found in Future World. Disney isn't willing to do this (spend the $$) right now (or for years, really), so the solution is to just give up on the place?

 

[raidermatt]

I'd hate to see them spend the next 5 years redoing FW, and neglect WS.

To take this point a step further, I'd hate to see them spend the next 5 years redoing FW and neglecting WS AND the other three parks.

I know there was no mention of what would or wouldn't be done at the other parks, but we know the purse strings are not THAT loose...

DC7800, I agree with everything you said, except that I'm sure the Soarin' clone and probably the Rainforest Coaster would qualify as E-tickets.

 

[Testtrack321]

Good thing our good friend DVC isn't here yet, or we will have some trouble.

Here are my thoughts on this idea:

-FUTURE WORLD -> Discoveryland- Although a nice idea, the prblem lies in the fact that Disney won't try anymore to add anything new. Segway HT's for testing in the park? Nu-uh.

-Republican Wildlife Refuge look- while it's nice, it would be cool to see giant trees mixed with new bronz bildings. Nice 'cool' touch. But I'll miss this look...

-Under the Sea- uh, god, where to start. While WDI can make this new 'attraction' less sappy and more educational, the fact that it's just a new preshow movie is pretty disgusting.

-Jr. Autopia- err, BAD IDEA! Unless they want to upgrade the ride system to a non-guest-choaking engine or something, I will strongly oppose this ride.

-Time Racers- while I am hesatant to get rid of SSE, this new ride sounds like SSE with better effects. Hoepfully it will be more like Spider-Man and less like Test Track.

-Soarin- thank you god. Get it in there ASAP

-Coaster- bad place, bad idea. If they put in a Vekoma SCL, god kill me.

-Hedge Maze- I can see it now "Mommie! I don't want to learn about batteries on paper! I want to leave!" "Sorry Jr, we have to find our way out first."