Please Put Epcot Out Of Its Misery!

[Shivatopia]

I agree with your assessment (in the OP) about Future World being a let-down for the most part. I made my first visit to WDW last October, and as I had expected I absolutely loved the World Showcase and was lukewarm about Future World. Perhaps when MK is done with their Fantasyland overhaul, maybe the Imagineers will turn their attention to Epcot...

 

[Rabid Nick]

lol, sorry, tablets can be a pain sometimes. I jumped while typing and thought I deleted it befor retyping it again further down.

LOL, the pains of living in "Future World"!

 

[Karabee]

I agree that EPCOT needs a bit of help in places - I for one would love to see more countries and for the current countries to be expanded. But that being said, I absolutely love it. I love walking through and meeting people from that area, or "pretending" I'm somewhere else. Isn't that the whole point if Disney? To pretend were somewhere magical and wonderful and away from that nasty real world?
That being said, there will always need to be updates to every park, every resort and every restaurant we all enjoy. When those updates happen, I immediately want to go back and see them They really know how to get us!

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

why does it take Disney SOOOOO DANG LONG to realize what to do. Either they are very self-unaware or they are too scared to fail.

If I were given the task I would wipe clean everything BUT Spaceship Earth and test track. They would get revamped for sure with 4d effects and HD screens something similar to HP with the robotic arm.

Test track would constantly be renovated every 3 to 4 years because that's pretty much how quickly the car industry changes.

I would expand World Showcase too! Adding in more restaurant choices and countries.

 

[thestevied]

 

[CTH3]

The reason no one can think of a good alternate name for "Future World" is because FW has lost its focus. It no longer knows what it is, so how can we be expected to know?

FW used to be all about learning. It was the world's first educational theme park. It cracks me up when people write, "Who wants to learn about X at Disney World?" or "No one wants to be taught lessons while on vacation!" Teaching lessons and learning used to be the whole point of FW.

Here are the FW attractions of the early 1990's and what we learned:

Spaceship Earth: we learned about how advancements in human communication have helped to create our world.

Innoventions: we learned all sorts of stuff on a wide variety of science and technology related subjects.

Horizons: we learned how technology might develop and what the future might be like.

Journey Into Imagination: we learned about the human imagination and how to use it.

The Living Seas: we learned about the ocean and undersea life and the future of ocean exploration by taking a trip to 'Sea Base Alpha'.

World of Motion: we learned about the history and achievements in transportation, from cavemen to the first automobiles.

The Land: we learned how we can use the land for our benefit, and how we might destroy it if we're not careful.

Universe of Energy: we learned about energy sources (without comedy), then took a ride through a primeval diorama with dinosaurs to learn about the origins of fossil fuels.

Wonders of Life: we learned about how the human body works, and sometimes doesn't work.

Back then every single attraction at FW was clearly all about education, teaching us about science and technology and the world around us.

Today? The two most popular attractions at FW today are Soarin’, in which we learn...umm...what parts of California look like from the air, and Test Track, in which we learn what it's like to ride in a car.

I, for one, wish Disney would stop being embarrassed by the idea of an educational theme park, and return FW to its roots.

A new name? How about "Discovery Land."

 

[jhaig]

Why go back to Disney World if you find so many things wrong with it? The reason why they don't update more is because people will probably complain and throw tantrums when they do update stuff.

We go because we love it. We go because it's the greatest family vacation spot in the world. And because we love it so much, we are outspoken about how what we loved about it has changed, and not for the better.

 

[RalphinSC]

The reason no one can think of a good alternate name for "Future World" is because FW has lost its focus. It no longer knows what it is, so how can we be expected to know?

FW used to be all about learning. It was the world's first educational theme park. It cracks me up when people write, "Who wants to learn about X at Disney World?" or "No one wants to be taught lessons while on vacation!" Teaching lessons and learning used to be the whole point of FW.

Here are the FW attractions of the early 1990's and what we learned:

Spaceship Earth: we learned about how advancements in human communication have helped to create our world.

Innoventions: we learned all sorts of stuff on a wide variety of science and technology related subjects.

Horizons: we learned how technology might develop and what the future might be like.

Journey Into Imagination: we learned about the human imagination and how to use it.

The Living Seas: we learned about the ocean and undersea life and the future of ocean exploration by taking a trip to 'Sea Base Alpha'.

World of Motion: we learned about the history and achievements in transportation, from cavemen to the first automobiles.

The Land: we learned how we can use the land for our benefit, and how we might destroy it if we're not careful.

Universe of Energy: we learned about energy sources (without comedy), then took a ride through a primeval diorama with dinosaurs to learn about the origins of fossil fuels.

Wonders of Life: we learned about how the human body works, and sometimes doesn't work.

Back then every single attraction at FW was clearly all about education, teaching us about science and technology and the world around us.

Today? The two most popular attractions at FW today are Soarin’, in which we learn...umm...what parts of California look like from the air, and Test Track, in which we learn what it's like to ride in a car.

I, for one, wish Disney would stop being embarrassed by the idea of an educational theme park, and return FW to its roots.

A new name? How about "Discovery Land."

That was very well spoken.

 

[Elissajoy]

The reason no one can think of a good alternate name for "Future World" is because FW has lost its focus. It no longer knows what it is, so how can we be expected to know?

FW used to be all about learning. It was the world's first educational theme park. It cracks me up when people write, "Who wants to learn about X at Disney World?" or "No one wants to be taught lessons while on vacation!" Teaching lessons and learning used to be the whole point of FW.

Here are the FW attractions of the early 1990's and what we learned:

Spaceship Earth: we learned about how advancements in human communication have helped to create our world.

Innoventions: we learned all sorts of stuff on a wide variety of science and technology related subjects.

Horizons: we learned how technology might develop and what the future might be like.

Journey Into Imagination: we learned about the human imagination and how to use it.

The Living Seas: we learned about the ocean and undersea life and the future of ocean exploration by taking a trip to 'Sea Base Alpha'.

World of Motion: we learned about the history and achievements in transportation, from cavemen to the first automobiles.

The Land: we learned how we can use the land for our benefit, and how we might destroy it if we're not careful.

Universe of Energy: we learned about energy sources (without comedy), then took a ride through a primeval diorama with dinosaurs to learn about the origins of fossil fuels.

Wonders of Life: we learned about how the human body works, and sometimes doesn't work.

Back then every single attraction at FW was clearly all about education, teaching us about science and technology and the world around us.

Today? The two most popular attractions at FW today are Soarin’, in which we learn...umm...what parts of California look like from the air, and Test Track, in which we learn what it's like to ride in a car.

I, for one, wish Disney would stop being embarrassed by the idea of an educational theme park, and return FW to its roots.

A new name? How about "Discovery Land."

I applaud you for what you wrote. Attractions that are fun and provide knowledge are adventures !! Thanks !!!

 

[jhaig]

Soarin' was shot and is presented on IMAX 70MM film, at a framerate of 48fps, which is double that of a standard film--yes, even digital.

I know that a lot of people don't know what this means, but fortunately I have the expertise to elaborate. First, some background. Before the advent of HD and digital presentation, the standard format for shooting and presenting films (the ones you see at a regular movie theater) was 35MM film. That is half the physical size of IMAX film, and it is shot at half as many frames per second (24fps). That format, of standard 35MM film, is a superior format in image quality to HD video. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Full HD is defined as an image measuring 1920 pixels in width, and a maximum of 1080 pixels vertically. That looks impressive compared to the old SD standard of 640 pixels wide by 480 pixels tall, which is what your old "tube" television presented, but it is a major downgrade from the resolution of 35MM film. And the really sad thing is that movie studios have actually started presenting movies in theaters under the "digital" moniker at this lower resolution, having the gall to advertise it as a superior cinematic experience. They have really sold the public on that notion, so I can't blame you for thinking that "HD" and "digital" means "better than film." If you doubt this, just go sit in the very front row the next time you go to the movies, and then just look at a corner of the screen rather than taking in the whole picture. Look for the pixels. You'll realize that they are there, and they might even be as big as the extra large Coca-Cola you're holding.

Now, stepping back, the IMAX that Soarin' uses presents DOUBLE the resolution AND framerate of 35MM film, which is itself already superior to any digital presentation available anywhere. There really is no comparison.

I will admit one caveat: Film, including IMAX film, does require maintenance and cleaning. Even then, you will occasionally see some dirt. The type of IMAX projector they use for Soarin' happens to be the same kind that I have worked with, which uses an air compressor to blow such dirt out before it can be seen, but some will still slip through. BUT, would you rather the occasional fleck of dirt, or pixels all over? If you will recall how close Soarin' puts you to the screen, you'll know that pixel visibility would be disastrous.

With all that said, I haven't been to the park in almost two years, and I'm not even sure I got the chance to ride Soarin' on that trip. If in fact the film print(s) has been allowed to degrade due to improper care, or is just being presented dirty due to lack of proper cleaning, then that is truly sad. But, there is no viable digital alternative, unless Disney wants to invent a new camera and projector system just for that ride. That includes IMAX digital, by the way, which is only IMAX in name, and does not represent anywhere near the same quality, using two "2K" projectors for an effective resolution of 4000 pixels horizontally.

My brain hurts just reading this . Great info though. Still, you would think a company that owns its own movie company could showcase a movie in their parks that doesn't look like Mickey wiped his butt with the screen.

 

[jhaig]

Soarin' was shot and is presented on IMAX 70MM film, at a framerate of 48fps, which is double that of a standard film--yes, even digital.

I know that a lot of people don't know what this means, but fortunately I have the expertise to elaborate. First, some background. Before the advent of HD and digital presentation, the standard format for shooting and presenting films (the ones you see at a regular movie theater) was 35MM film. That is half the physical size of IMAX film, and it is shot at half as many frames per second (24fps). That format, of standard 35MM film, is a superior format in image quality to HD video. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Full HD is defined as an image measuring 1920 pixels in width, and a maximum of 1080 pixels vertically. That looks impressive compared to the old SD standard of 640 pixels wide by 480 pixels tall, which is what your old "tube" television presented, but it is a major downgrade from the resolution of 35MM film. And the really sad thing is that movie studios have actually started presenting movies in theaters under the "digital" moniker at this lower resolution, having the gall to advertise it as a superior cinematic experience. They have really sold the public on that notion, so I can't blame you for thinking that "HD" and "digital" means "better than film." If you doubt this, just go sit in the very front row the next time you go to the movies, and then just look at a corner of the screen rather than taking in the whole picture. Look for the pixels. You'll realize that they are there, and they might even be as big as the extra large Coca-Cola you're holding.

Now, stepping back, the IMAX that Soarin' uses presents DOUBLE the resolution AND framerate of 35MM film, which is itself already superior to any digital presentation available anywhere. There really is no comparison.

I will admit one caveat: Film, including IMAX film, does require maintenance and cleaning. Even then, you will occasionally see some dirt. The type of IMAX projector they use for Soarin' happens to be the same kind that I have worked with, which uses an air compressor to blow such dirt out before it can be seen, but some will still slip through. BUT, would you rather the occasional fleck of dirt, or pixels all over? If you will recall how close Soarin' puts you to the screen, you'll know that pixel visibility would be disastrous.

With all that said, I haven't been to the park in almost two years, and I'm not even sure I got the chance to ride Soarin' on that trip. If in fact the film print(s) has been allowed to degrade due to improper care, or is just being presented dirty due to lack of proper cleaning, then that is truly sad. But, there is no viable digital alternative, unless Disney wants to invent a new camera and projector system just for that ride. That includes IMAX digital, by the way, which is only IMAX in name, and does not represent anywhere near the same quality, using two "2K" projectors for an effective resolution of 4000 pixels horizontally.

You obviously have more knowledge in this are than I do, so let me ask you this - could WDW scrap the giant screen and equip each seat with its own mini-screen in a higher resolution and still get the same effect of watching Soarin on a big screen? You would still get the smells and movements, but the screen would be right in front of you in HD!

 

[larryz]

...could WDW scrap the giant screen and equip each seat with its own mini-screen in a higher resolution and still get the same effect of watching Soarin on a big screen? You would still get the smells and movements, but the screen would be right in front of you in HD!

Part of what makes Soarin' work is the peripheral vision effect of the curved screen. You really couldn't get that on a bunch of flat screens strung across the rows.

 

[polymerpig]

Epcot is still stuck in the 80's wearing its leg warmers listening to Duran Duran

WAIT. WHAT??? Duran Duran's coming to EPCOT????? AWESOME!!!!! Hahahaha jk...They're not old enough yet for Flower Power.

Wonders of Life pavilion. It lives on during Flower and Garden

I happened to use the restrooms in WOL last Food and Wine...has anyone noticed that the sinks and everything are all still manually operated... I was like WHAT? I actually have to turn on the faucet instead of waving my hand in front of it??? LOL...guess the other sinks were updated after WOL closed.

My husband liked that ride with the plants.

MY BIL called this the Crop Ride once and now I can only think of it with that name.

 

[reiella]

<snip> And the really sad thing is that movie studios have actually started presenting movies in theaters under the "digital" moniker at this lower resolution, having the gall to advertise it as a superior cinematic experience. They have really sold the public on that notion, so I can't blame you for thinking that "HD" and "digital" means "better than film."
<snip>
I will admit one caveat: Film, including IMAX film, does require maintenance and cleaning. Even then, you will occasionally see some dirt. The type of IMAX projector they use for Soarin' happens to be the same kind that I have worked with, which uses an air compressor to blow such dirt out before it can be seen, but some will still slip through. BUT, would you rather the occasional fleck of dirt, or pixels all over? If you will recall how close Soarin' puts you to the screen, you'll know that pixel visibility would be disastrous.
<snip>

Snipped some pieces together here to clarify on how theatres have managed to sell that 'digital' is better than film. Digital looks far better when you apply the minimal effort. There are very few projectionists who care anymore. So you have a higher minimum quality with digital, but no one is going to bother to achieve better with film so we're left with the easier solution.

And just to agree, 35mm film is far better quality wise than digital, if it wasn't we wouldn't be able to get nice DIs of classic movies for the blu-ray release . Nor would we be getting the oh so spiffy STTNG on blu-ray.

[ Of course, I'm fairly certain you know this, given your experience but just sharing the tidbit about why theatres do what they do now. ]

 

[*Fantasia*]

My family and I love Epcot!! Some are nostalgic and should be kept that way. I love Epcot. I wouldn't change a thing!

 

[kandb]

Anyone know what WDW's profit was last year compared to Universal's? Just wondering if Universal puts more of it's profit into improving their parks, where disney just gives their's to the stockholders?

 

[CentralFloridian99]

How in the world you read that and concluded completely baffles me. Or that when someone corrects you, that it's Wikipedia that was the problem?

The correction was made, end of discussion. Don't lead this into a major topic and have the thread closed.

 

[mattsdragon]

That's what is beautiful about the saying about people's opinions and certain body parts.

EPCOT is our favorite park we love both side, FW and WS, sorry dude, but it is the second most popular park for a reason.

 

[si-am]

Epcot is my favorite park but I think it's for 1) World Showcase and 2) nostalgia.

I love Future World because I have so many happy memories there, but to be honest I don't really ride much there anymore. Just sort of enjoy the ambiance, ride SSE, The Land, and Soarin' or Test Track if I can get on... and then I wait for World Showcase to open. It's a one day park for me now, but it used to be a two day park back in its heyday of World of Motion, Horizons, and the original Imagination!

 

[Planogirl]

But that's the thing ... you're not comparing Epcot to "Universal Studios" -- you're comparing it to "Hogwarts". Walk out of WWoHP for a second and look at the REST of IOA and Universal. They're just as much in need of an update, rehab, and refresh as parts of Epcot. But because Universal has Harry Potter, people forgive them everything else. People go to WWoHP because it's the new part. It's the flashy, themed, "most Disney-like" part. The rest of the park is what they do when they're done at Hogsmeade. If they even decide to GO to the rest of the park.

Universal isn't putting money into any other part of IOA right now, and is building one new ride (Despicable Me) at US. They've closed Jaws (thank you!) and haven't announced anything there yet. Nevermind that Jurassic Park, Seuss Island, Superhero Island, Barney-land (really ... Barney? Is he even on TV any more?), Feivel's Playland (do kids know who HE is?) and several other areas are in sore need of something new.

If you don't want to spend time at Future World, don't. There's certainly more than enough other stuff to see, ride and watch. But don't give Universal a pass simply because they have Harry Potter. Wander through the REST of IOA and US, and then judge its level of upkeep against all of WDW. Then you can make a more apples to apples comparison.

I compare the two resorts every year and as much as I have loved Epcot for many, many years I think that it's very shabby compared to ALL of Universal. But this really isn't about Universal IMO. It's about Disney not keeping Epcot fresh and alive.