Analyst's Questions - "No church for Easter Sunday"

[ParrotHead]

Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
How many true "Rides" does EPCOT have? Hmmm....Spaceship Earth, Universe of Energy, Body Wars, Test Track, the Land, and Maelstorm. I would have to say that EPCOT is at least as Passive as AK if not more so.

Which is one of the reasons that Epcot's attendance started to take a beating long before 9/11...

 

[Peter Pirate]

Which is is one of the reasons hat Epcot's attendance started to take a beating long befoe 9/11.

I disagree my blues friend, Epcot did quite well for itself during the Millenium Celebration, as I recall, and even taking that event out of the equation, I think the biggest problem Epcot has had is that too much was getting stale...

I agree with the camp that see's AK as more passve than even Epcot, because the character of Epcot WS is alive with a different type of passivity...That of food, drink & live entertainnmet...I'm not sure passive accurately describes this...

 

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
How many true "Rides" does EPCOT have?

In all honesty, I was thinking more about the original EPCOT, and not the disastor area that Future World has turned into today.

Never the less, I still think that EPCOT today is more of a "full day" park than is AK.

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
I disagree my blues friend, Epcot did quite well for itself during the Millenium Celebration, as I recall, and even taking that event out of the equation, I think the biggest problem Epcot has had is that too much was getting stale...

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the attendance at Epcot pretty much took a nose-dive after the Millenium Celebration ended. But I do agree with you that Epcot's Future World was getting stale - unfortunately their attempts to help Future World have all been dismal failures - except Test Track. Let's just hope their new Imagination and Mission SPACE live up to the hype, or Epcot's going to be in serious trouble.

 

[space42]

The thing about EPCOT pre 1994 was that most of the attractions were in the 10-15 minute range.

It took me almost 1/2 the day to just see Future World with only minimal waits. Every attraction that has been replaced/refurbished has been shorter than the origonal. Test Track is at least 1/2 the length of WOM. JIYI was 1/2 the length of JII (dont think the new one is going to be any longer unless they extend the ride track and put the carrousel begining part back). Mission Space is supposed to be about 4 minutes long (at least 1/3 the time of Horizons) No more ride in The Living Seas.

Sadly EPCOT today for me is nothing more than dinner, a trip arround WS and Illuminations. I dont even bother going into Future World anymore. Its too depressing.

 

[ParrotHead]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate

I disagree my blues friend, Epcot did quite well for itself during the Millenium Celebration

Yes, but afterwards attendance started to really hurt. Staleness definitely was a factor (check out the '80s-style clothes on the "Oh, Canada" movie), but so, too, was a lack of rides. Or at least that's what Management concluded in a memo that an insider was kind enough to pass on to me. The solution? More rides--and update the stuff that's already there.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Tik Tok:

In all honesty, I was thinking more about the original EPCOT, and not the disaster area that Future World has turned into today.

You can say that again!!!

But I do agree with you that Epcot's Future World was getting stale - unfortunately their attempts to help Future World have all been dismal failures - except Test Track.

Again I agree with you!!! But I would include Test Track! To me it is a ride, not an attraction and certainy not a pavilion! Don’t get me wrong. A very nice ride. An exciting ride. But not up to the early EPCOT standards that opened the park.

ParrotHead:

The solution? More rides--and update the stuff that's already there.

Soooo???? When they gonna start?!?!?! Especially WS. Nah. Strike that. The whole thing needs it. And needs it bad!!!



(Welcome ParrotHead! I’m glad you found us! I hope to see you here more often. We’ve got a great little group here and I know you’ll fit in well.

But I do have a little problem. I always bring my fair share of nice rumors and news bits into this group, and most of them come from your site and associated e-mail group. So if you see something overly familiar, remember… Keep it under your hat!!! )

 

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Again I agree with you!!! But I would include Test Track! To me it is a ride, not an attraction and certainy not a pavilion! Don’t get me wrong. A very nice ride. An exciting ride. But not up to the early EPCOT standards that opened the park.

I would actually tend to agree with you about Test Track - I've never really felt it was a good fit for Future World, and it certainly doesn't live up to its predecessor World of Motion (imho of course). The only reason I consider it a successful addition is because most of the guests to Epcot seem to really enjoy the ride - and besides, it's not like there's that much else to do in Future World these days.

 

[ParrotHead]

I seem to be in the minority, but I really enjoy Test Track. In terms of theme, I do believe it's out of place in Future World. In fact, I'm not really sure where it WOULD fit in thematically.

But I think it's an attraction, not a ride. It's a unique experience with a unique ride system. I'm not aware of any other ride in the world quite like Test Track. That uniqueness makes it an attraction, in my book (as compared with the plain old rides at DCA's Paradise Pier).

 

[Peter Pirate]

Just the silent majority...I think TT is great. It is educational & and exciting without being vomit inducing. Further, the whole "it doesn't fit" argument just seems tired. Parks change...They evolve with the time and there is no law that says an original theme, format or goal has to be strrictly adhered to or adhered to at all. In fact the only real goal should be guest satisfaction. FW sounded like a great idea and initially it was, but the cost of keeping ahead of the curve became unjustifiable and changes were bound to take place. Let's just hope something nice is done for The Living Seas and that Space is a success...

 

[ParrotHead]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
Parks change...They evolve with the time and there is no law that says an original theme, format or goal has to be strrictly adhered to or adhered to at all. In fact the only real goal should be guest satisfaction. FW sounded like a great idea and initially it was, but the cost of keeping ahead of the curve became unjustifiable and changes were bound to take place.

I do agree that Tomorrowlands and Future Worlds are mighty hard to keep up with.

But perhaps if the theme of Future World is changing, the name should, too...

 

[Peter Pirate]

Excellent point scoop! As an Ap holder I often forget that everyones perception IS NOT based on the same POV and this is very relevent...

As to the name change...In the immortal words of Timon, "what's in a name?"...But seriously the name FW & WS mean little to me, I have always just visited Epcot...But perhaps a more reflective monniker would be a good thing.

 

[space42]

Scoop & Pirate!

Yes, I agree 100%. That is exactly the "problem". Perhaps those that go more than once a year see it more than those that go once every few years.

Its just that EPCOT hasn't aged as well as MK IMHO (besides, they redid all of Tomorrowland in 1994.. ) Perhaps the type of changes done in Tomorrowland could be done with Future World. Going more for a retro/future look.

I suppose thats the price for making Future World.

 

[larworth]

I wonder if that is really the entire problem with Animal Kingdom - it's passive nature

We often talk about how DAK was designed to be a very different type park. Passive being the common experience adjective. Was this really the intent or an unintended byproduct of the theme? If BK had been built (per design) would DAK really have that different a mix of experiences than an MGM?

Quick comparison (MGM – DAK).

Motion based thrill rides (ToT, RnR, S Tours – Dino, Dragon Coaster, Kali, Whirl)
3D Movies (Muppets – TTBaB)
Broadway style stage shows (Beauty, Hunch – L King, Poco)
Action shows (Indy – Tarzan)
Ride and see (GMR, Canyon – Safari)
Close encounters (Animation, Sounds – Cons. Station, Flights)
Walk and see (Streets, Backlot tour – Jungle Treks)
Parade (Cars – Jungle)
Playground (HIS – Boneyard)
Kids (Mermaid, Bear – Unicorn, Spinner, Camp Mickey)
Win prizes (WWTBAM – Carney games)
Evening show (Fantasmic – xxx)
Other (??? – Tree of Life)

 

[Tik Tok]

but I'm still not totally convinced that the only problem Epcot has is one of perception. True, when we go often (and I do go about once a week ) we tend to see problems faster and get bored quicker, but that doesn't mean problems don't exist. And I think this excuse that a Future World is to hard or expensive to do is just a big cop out on Disney's part. The Future is just as exciting and stimulating as it always was - but it does cost money to keep fresh. Disney just needs to make the commitment to keeping the parks fresh and current - while staying within the existing theme of the park. (Or else just drop the Future World name already - but I really hope they don't go this route).

space42 said
The thing about EPCOT pre 1994 was that most of the attractions were in the 10-15 minute range.

I truely think that THIS is probably the thing that irritates us EPCOT lovers the most - the end of the "feature-length" attractions. 80's EPCOT was all about long, detailed attractions - and that was what I loved about EPCOT Center the most. And slowly, over the past 10 years, we have lost almost all of the "feature-length" attractions in favor of more thrilling short attractions. And while I've always felt (even in the 80's) that EPCOT needed a thrill ride or two, I wish they didn't have to come at the expense of Horizons and World of Motion. They could easily have added a roller coaster mountain or two to World Showcase, but that never happened. Instead, they haven't touched World Showcase since Norway opened, and they've gutted Future World instead. I just hope someone at Disney eventually realizes that only the Disney company can offer these special "feature-length" attractions, and they begin to build a few at their parks again soon.

 

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by larworth
Quick comparison (MGM – DAK).

This is actually a very interesting list, and something I had not thought about before, but you're right - if BK had been added, then they probably would have had a park with about the same attraction mix as MGM - except, don't forget, if BK had been built there would not have been a Camp Minnie-Mickey, so you would have to drop that stuff from the list. But you're right, the addition of Beastly Kingdom would definately have done a long way towards making AK more an experience like the other parks.

Now if they would only add that, and some C and D attractions that are sorely missing, then maybe AK would finally be worth that $50 to the average day-guest.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I don't dispute much of what you say with the exception of the expense of keping FW relavent. I don't see this as a cop-out at all, but rather a business decision. It could not be fiscally responsible to attempt to continually keep current in the times that we live. The idea of a realistic future world is a pipe dream that would require constant change and updating...How could a theme park budget this?

Next the change in direction of attraction from informative to exciting, long to short is a product of what was needed. World of Motion seldom had wait lines of 90 minutes but test Track does regularly. Also don't forget that Horizons had to go...The building wasn't good...

I also agree with scoop's analysis on what was being attempted despite the apparant similarities of the list...

 

[larworth]

There is clearly a difference.

I started thinking about this after Rohde's comment about DAK needing more kinetics. However, it seems that the passive label doesn't come from the types of activities people are offered (the mix is very similar) but the context in which they are executed. Just goes to show how important creating a mood is.

If we assume DAK needs to become more popular does this speak any to what type of project they should do next?


I tend to agree with Peter on the potential investment impracticality of keeping things relevant. EPCOT has less attendance and therefore less capital to reinvest than a MK. Now, sponsor contributions do impact on the equation. Guess I'd want to see the relative income statements before I said it could not be done, versus they chose not to do it.

 

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
Next the change in direction of attraction from informative to exciting, long to short is a product of what was needed. World of Motion seldom had wait lines of 90 minutes but test Track does regularly. Also don't forget that Horizons had to go...The building wasn't good...

I'll grant you that these attractions never had long lines towards the end, but I'm still not certain that ripping them out totally and building thrill rides is the answer to all of Epcot's problems. Let's take Test Track for example - sure, it has 90 minute waits, but that's probably more a factor of it a)being the newest ride in the park, b)being the only "thrill" ride in the park, c)FastPass making the Standby Line longer, and d)low capacity. Let's not forget that attractions like Horizons, JII, WoM and Spaceship Earth had (and have) amazing capacity, so they can move a lot of people through there faster.

So sure, thrill rides always have longer lines, but are they really what's bringing all the people to the Disney parks -- I would think no. Sure, there should be one or two in each park (and for Epcot I think WS would be a better place for them), but I think what makes Disney truely Disney is it's fully immersive Audio-Animatronic spectaculars. They're just something we've all come to associate with Disney - and only Disney can do them well. I'm just sorry to see that Disney is to cheap to even attempt to build them anymore.


As for keeping Epcot relevant, I really don't think it would have been as expensive as you all claim. Think about it - was Horizons really that out of date? Sure, it represented more of an 80's vision of the future, but almost none of those things represented in that attraction have come to pass yet -- it's still all in the Future. I would wager that a simple cosmetic makeover, some new AA's and a new ending could have revitalized that ride and made it "current", and I think this could have been done with JII and WoM as well -- they did not need to be ripped out.

Also don't forget that Horizons had to go...The building wasn't good...

For some reason I have trouble believing this, and tend to think it was just an internet rumor, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

 

[Bob O]

I think part of the problem at Epcot is they havent added any new lands. Their are alot of rumors over the years but none were acted upon! And in the countries they have, they have the same films and havent done nothing to update them. I think TT was a big improvement over the World of Motion and hopefully Mission Space will be abig improvement. But without a additon of alot of money it will be hard to update Future World. Thats why i feel that before they added Ak they should have done work that weas needed in all of the parks, fixe some holes before building new, or if they were going to build Ak it should have been completed from day one and not where they give the guest a little with the promise of more to come.
Horzions was dated and people voted with their feet so the attraction had no waits and was a walk on, same with world of motion and now the same with the ocean pavilion(forgot the name/brain fart). JIYI they changed for the worse and took away space so they could sell more!

 

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by Bob O
Thats why i feel that before they added Ak they should have done work that weas needed in all of the parks, fixe some holes before building new, or if they were going to build Ak it should have been completed from day one and not where they give the guest a little with the promise of more to come.

I completely agree with this, but I think all the suits think is "new theme park == more nights for people to stay at our hotels == more money", and they did just as little as they could to get people to come. This is the new Disney "give the guest as little as possible and still make the most money possible" as opposed to the old Disney "give the guest the best experience possible, and they will spend their money". Sad, isn't it.