This is getting off the main topic, but just to follow up:
I don't agree that it should be rethemed per se, in that Future World should remain Future World, but I agree it needs to go back to reflecting the promise of the future. The pavilions need overhauls and they need to populate long empty space (Life pavilion, I'm looking at you).
I think part of the problem is that the pavilions have been updated/changed in a very ad-hoc fashion. Pavilions operate until Disney decides there's a problem, at which point they either left to slowly rot (I would put Energy and part of the Land pavilion in this category) until they get shut down (Horizons), go through a minor refresh/update (the Spaceship Earth/Seas/Imagination) or get something major (Soarin', Test Track, Mission Space). But, there doesn't seem to be much real planning or foresight, so you get this mix of really cool rides, very tired and dated things, and stuff that is decent but hasn't kept up with the times. The sense of it being any sort of a "future world" is mostly lost.
For a park focused on the future (though not Walt's original vision), they really need to have a plan for keeping things up-to-date and refreshed. Depending on how you count, there are 7 or 8 pavilions, plus Innoventions, in Future World. If you consider how fast things move, I'd think you'd consider a pavilion to have a basic "lifespan" of maybe 15 years max before it needs some sort of updating. That would basically mean having each pavilion undergo a "big" renovation/re-imagining/updating/whatever every 2 years, which is maybe about the amount of time it might actually take to make major changes/updates. So, Disney should probably be planning on a continuous process of updating one pavilion at all times, more as part of the operating budget, rather than the capital budget. I don't think they're doing that, at all, but man, if they did, Epcot could be a really great park. Much more up-to-date, something new at least every 2 years, etc. Of course, it might also mean sometimes getting rid of old favorites that some people are attached to (and are cheaper to just keep operating).
They could pretty easily combine this with doing a thorough update to each World Showcase pavilion every 2 years (though this is probably less necessary). And, if they timed construction right, they'd probably only need to have 1 pavilion in WS or FW closed at any one "peak" time. It would give the impression of a continually improving park, though, rather than one that can easily start to feel outdated.
I do like your idea for World Showcase. Every pavilion should have an attraction of some type, even if it is just a movie/show, and I have no problem letting the Disney characters be involved in that. Don't lose the cultural stuff, but adding characters in the manner of the Three Caballeros, ones that work with the country's culture, sounds great to me.
I think the problem might be that there's not sufficient room to really add a significant ride/attraction to each pavilion, unless you count movies. Right now, there are just 3 "attractions" (if you count the one in USA), and another 3 movies. I'm not sure there's room in the other 5 pavilions to actually add a significant ride/attraction but it would make this area draw even more people. As I remember it, there was actually a proposal being considered at one time to split Epcot into two parks (and as part of that, they were going to add additional attractions to WS).
