tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post1997203980987239951..comments2023-11-05T00:52:41.562-07:00Comments on EPCOT Central: Opportunity MissedEpcot82http://www.blogger.com/profile/14763893513279437902noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-19270477117155228982007-07-26T16:49:00.000-07:002007-07-26T16:49:00.000-07:00EPCOT Center is an idea that can stand the lengths...EPCOT Center is an idea that can stand the lengths of time itself. Then Disney mudded it up with Three Caballeros and Eric Idle. If they had seen the mistakes they made through the haze of $$$, they could correct.<BR/><BR/>I feel the ground shaking!! Walt's turning over in his grave by the destruction of his dream!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-48147162428589499972007-05-04T19:56:00.000-07:002007-05-04T19:56:00.000-07:00You make a good point about our smugness about the...You make a good point about our smugness about the present, although I believe that the disappearance of optimism has more to do with the state of children's entertainment today. Kids grow up consuming ironic and sarcastic media before they even have the intellectual means to "get it". The only message that seems to filter down is that everything is screwed up, and there's nothing anyone can do about it but make snide and apathetic remarks.<BR/><BR/>I find it more than a little depressing that a society of text messagers thinks that "OMGWTFLOL" is in any way advanced and not a comically primitive means of communication.Captain Schnemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112333068173312142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-80093197334371999082007-05-03T06:31:00.000-07:002007-05-03T06:31:00.000-07:00"--what could possibly be more amazing than the pr...<I>"--what could possibly be more amazing than the present? "</I><BR/><BR/>A lot of things, the modern world we live in today is still nowhere near where we should be. Take transportation for example...it hasn't really improved much in the past century, actually in many ways its gotten worse. <BR/><BR/>Thats where the original EPCOT city plan would have helpedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-81602609862108827342007-05-01T19:26:00.000-07:002007-05-01T19:26:00.000-07:00I think what you're saying, Schnemo, is mostly ver...I think what you're saying, Schnemo, is mostly very true. I believe, though, that the "default belief" today is not "the future is going to suck" (we <I>are</I> bombarded with that thought constantly, but that's always been the case). Rather, here in 2007 we've settled into a lazy rut where we believe the future, with all its wonders, is surrounding us today. We are, as you mentioned much earlier in this discussion, the family from the Carousel of Progress--what could possibly be more amazing than the present? Technology has moved so mind-numbingly fast in just the past 10 years that it's become impossible for many of us to conceive how the world will look even a few years down the road, and so the collective imagination has all but lost its will to get excited about envisioning the future. Just give us our RAZRs and our iPods and we'll be happy--nothing can top the here and now.<BR/><BR/>In 1982, I think the future was actually easier to grasp because it still seemed to be a "horizon" just beyond our reach. Part of that, I'm sure, is the fact that the 21st century stood less than two decades away--it was an exciting and mysterious benchmark, a grand milestone to look ahead to, and EPCOT Center was a place where you didn't have to wait 18 years to get there. This, I'm sure, is part of the reason it was more "cool" to be optimistic two decades ago than it is today. Now that we're in the 21st century, and the 3rd millennium, there's no such milestone in any of our lifetimes. We're here. The computer revolution, which we were on the cusp of in EPCOT's first decade, has come...now PCs are as common as salt and so advanced already that we can't begin to think where the next revolution will be and how it could possibly be more impactful. We're running low on wide-eyed wonder--we're too savvy for that today, and our culture is indeed more cynical as a result. <BR/><BR/>This, I believe, is the main reason EPCOT Center needs to stop being run by suits and has to get some real Imagineers back. A true rebirth of the original park in tone and spirit will require our best creative minds, because the public's vision of the future at large has become more short-sighted and mundane than it was in 1982. For all our talk of technology there's really not much that's boldly pointing our way towards the future. EPCOT Center could, with a lot of imagination from the right people, have the potential to fill that gap and become more relevant than Disney has ever dreamed...<BR/><BR/>I realize now that none of that was about Spaceship Earth, but those have been some of the thoughts floating around in my head and Schnemo's comment triggered them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-36078066615821605272007-04-29T03:20:00.000-07:002007-04-29T03:20:00.000-07:00I think the beauty of Epcot in the past was that i...I think the beauty of Epcot in the past was that it presented its own challenge to the guest's cynicism, by actually <I>showing</I> them what the future can be...to say we, as a people, aspire to this, and you know it is possible because you're looking at it.<BR/><BR/>The default belief is that the future is going to suck (even 1982 was the era of <I>Blade Runner</I>) and it's taken as read that's what's in the guest's head. It's more true today, as even children's programming is filled with cynicism and irony and being optimistic is equated with being hopelessly uncool and out-of-touch.<BR/><BR/>To me, the challenge is not to address this issue directly with words (which is cheap and literal), but to address these ideas with a vision that is both positive and convincing. In most good works of art, the theme is not attacked literally. Harrison Ford's character doesn't have to say "Boy, this is one awful future!", you're simply presented with the story which makes the point obvious.<BR/><BR/>One of the things I most liked about the Living Seas' "deluge" movie was the reveal. The doors dramatically open and the future is right there. There's no argument about what is or isn't possible, they just flat out show you the goods.<BR/><BR/>It's a minor point to most people, I suspect, but to me the presentation gives great insight into how the Imagineers are thinking and what they expect the guests to take from their creations. It takes balls to buck convention. Giving people what they expect is easier, but it also has little chance of dramatically affecting them.Captain Schnemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112333068173312142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-28786018342991744052007-04-28T15:59:00.000-07:002007-04-28T15:59:00.000-07:00Sorry about the lack of focus of this post, but oh...Sorry about the lack of focus of this post, but oh well...<BR/>About the Irons narration vs. the Cronkite narration, I think Iron's is far superior. It is much more intriguing and I can listen to it forever. The Cronkite version seemed too much like a laundry list ("Behold the majesty of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. etc.."). Also, I think the line about electronic babble is the best line in the attraction. It challenges you, the listener, to keep communication technology about communicating and not about noise. It is not cynical.<BR/><BR/>On another subject, I went to the new post-show area Friday. It was interesting. It was basically a few banks of computer games spread around the room, one of which looked like a standard racing one and the other was some sort of 3D thing, with glasses and stuff. The electricity games were not there yet. It kinda reminds me of some of the exhibits in Wonders of Life (as far as how slight they are). They're not bad games, and the room they're in is nice, but it was still disappointing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-32847744583001650162007-04-24T20:52:00.000-07:002007-04-24T20:52:00.000-07:00It's not so much about money as it is about respec...It's not so much about money as it is about respect for the parks and theming, and a willingness to put some serious thought and planning into each attraction. In short, Disney doesn't take itself seriously any more.<BR/><BR/>The problem with many of the new attractions isn't that they're too cheap, it's that they're stupid, poorly themed, and poorly designed.<BR/><BR/>"Monsters, spacemen, yeah, sure, whatever...the customers won't care and neither should we!"<BR/><BR/>As for Irons' narration, I'd never considered it "dramatic", but I can see that point of view.<BR/><BR/>In particular, I object to the "But will these seemingly infinite communications become a flood of electronic babble?" line, because that's the default belief of a cynical population. It's much harder to write something optimistic and sound convincing, but spending brain power is not something Disney seems interested in doing (again, money isn't the whole issue).<BR/><BR/>I guess a certain amount of drama is fair for the opening sequences. Also respect for Cronkite as a man and his reassuring delivery are probably both products of my age.Captain Schnemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112333068173312142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-78836816424495085502007-04-24T17:26:00.000-07:002007-04-24T17:26:00.000-07:00I have hope...and here is why. The same era that b...I have hope...and here is why. The same era that brought us DCA and some of the worst attractions ever at WDW also brought Tokyo DisneySea...a masterpiece of theme park design...and why?<BR/><BR/>Because the Disney Company didn't pay for most of it. <BR/><BR/>So what does that mean here? Well Siemens is putting its corporate hands all over this project, they're probably spending a lot too. I'm hoping that with them paying for sponsorship we'll get a high quality update.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-75033348106804873432007-04-24T10:26:00.000-07:002007-04-24T10:26:00.000-07:00What's there to debate? Whether it's a great attra...What's there to debate? Whether it's a great attraction or not, whether it's desperately in need of an update or not, whether they stick brand new technology in the thing or not, history has proven that current management doesn't have a clue what to do with the park.<BR/><BR/>There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for "at leasts" when discussing any Disney park. This is not a place that's supposed to be "at least" as good as anything else. It's supposed to be the top dog of everything like it or that comes after it. It's supposed to set the standard. Not only have the recent changes in the past few years shown that Disney management doesn't understand what EPCOT stood for, they don't even realize what a cash cow their slaughtering by failure to understand that. And there's no reason to think that this latest addition is going to be anything else but more failure to see the forest for the trees.<BR/><BR/>Walt Disney and his immediate predecessors once taught me to be optimistic about the future. Current management has all but destroyed that optimism. And honestly, what possible reason could I have to think of this as anything else but another nail in the coffin? EPCOT has become nothing more then a depository of ideas for Disney. Got something new and shiny? Stick in Future World! Theming be damned. That's not good enough. EPCOT is better then that. And it's a damn shame the numbnuts in charge can't see what a grand place EPCOT could still be.<BR/><BR/>I for one, give up on EPCOT. Until the money grubbers are all kicked out on their collective designer suited asses, I have no longer any hope for any Disney park. Lassiter is only one man, and not enough. Fire the MBAs or whatever the hell you call the accountanteers who are too busy greasing their pockets with my cash to give a damn about legacies. Once their gone, then we can rebuild and have optimism again. Until their gone, I give up. On all of it...Digital Jedihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02374739586203788564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-64745768298869931592007-04-24T05:49:00.000-07:002007-04-24T05:49:00.000-07:00To me, the Cronkite version felt like my grandfath...To me, the Cronkite version felt like my grandfather taking me on a tour of a museum...it's nice, but it wasn't an extraordinary experience. I'll take the drama and mystery of Irons voice matched with that musical score any day. I hope they go with something similar in the rehab...not because a Cronkite-like voice is wrong for the attraction (it's not) but perhaps because at this point in EPCOT's history I'm so mortally afraid of the park's last great Animatronic ride becoming too quaint or cutesy. Let there still be some air of the "unknown" about the place, please!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-48839142076217359702007-04-23T22:04:00.000-07:002007-04-23T22:04:00.000-07:00Excellent point about the starfield. That was one...Excellent point about the starfield. That was one of the highlights of the original attraction.<BR/><BR/>Another was the positive tone of the Cronkite narration, as opposed to the gloomy Irons version.Captain Schnemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112333068173312142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-40738809241550921112007-04-23T11:13:00.000-07:002007-04-23T11:13:00.000-07:00John H said... But it's definitely disappointing t...John H said... But it's definitely disappointing that the incredibly stupid/tacky/out-of-place wand won't be coming down.<BR/><BR/>Agreed. That was the biggest "ew" moment for me in the whole article. They know people hate it, but they really like it a lot? It cost a lot of money? Why why why is it staying?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-42343330593462317762007-04-23T10:56:00.000-07:002007-04-23T10:56:00.000-07:00First off, let me say that I completely agree with...First off, let me say that I completely agree with sdav10495 that The Land is indeed the best pavillion in Epcot... still the one with the best connection to the original themes of progress, understanding and innovation. I miss a lot of the old-school Epcot Center that I loved so much.<BR/><BR/>However, while I really like SSE, I do feel that an update of sorts is necessary... particularly on the "trip down" side of the ride, which got an update about what, 10 years ago? It's in need of it again. I am hopeful that the changes on the ascent part of the ride will only be minor. And who knows, maybe with the new narration and music there will be the orrotunity to rigth a few wrongs: maybe there will be more of a breathtaking moment at the top of the ride when the starfield is revealed (someting that was definitely lost with the transition from Cronkite to Irons, IMHO). I can only hope.<BR/><BR/>But it's definitely disappointing that the incredibly stupid/tacky/out-of-place wand won't be coming down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-17682546508123139202007-04-19T17:03:00.000-07:002007-04-19T17:03:00.000-07:00http://www.intercot.com/discussion/showthread.php?...http://www.intercot.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=102504<BR/><BR/>Another announcement: Patina Restaurant Group will be taking over the space currently occupied by Alfredo's. Patina operates the Naples Restaurant at Disneyland's Downtown Disney (never been, so I can't comment). It's a new restaurant concept that will include signature dishes, interactive experience, and a variety of wine, according to the internal release. This new restaurant will open in Fall 2008. An "authentic Italian chef" will run the daily operations of this new concept. <BR/><BR/>Between August 31 (when Alfredo's contract expires) and Fall 2008, Patina will serve Italian food from its current restaurants.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09385975959669303926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-7740833825796113702007-04-18T10:21:00.000-07:002007-04-18T10:21:00.000-07:00It almost sounds like they are bringing back a wat...It almost sounds like they are bringing back a watered down Horizons. Pft, darn you Epcot.JStone423https://www.blogger.com/profile/12462138519730033002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-22454098919581631092007-04-16T16:10:00.000-07:002007-04-16T16:10:00.000-07:00Good points were made about Soarin'. It's not act...Good points were made about Soarin'. It's not actually "about" flying, the focus is definitely on the land below. Doesn't really say anything about it, but it does seem that a new film could do a much better job of fitting into The Land.<BR/><BR/>jenna: <I>Technology will probably continue to advance at an exponential place which really means that no matter what Epcot does, it will be obsolete before they finish building it!</I><BR/><BR/>Only if the goal is to look a very short distance into the future. One of the major problems with Innoventions is that the showcased technology is not futuristic at all. It's an examination of the present, which, as you rightly point out, is immediately outdated. If they'd update it more frequently (and do a better job of selecting the technology in the first place), it'd be fine, but installing tech that is already old and then hanging on to it for years is a big mess.<BR/><BR/>Getting back to the point, Horizons was largely criticized for being "outdated", despite the fact that we have not achieved any of the major things displayed in the attraction. We don't have cities in space, seabases, holographic phones, tamed deserts, etc.<BR/><BR/>They looked far enough into the future that, 25 years later, we still haven't seen what they showed us back then.<BR/><BR/>An intelligent, well-researched, and thoughtful prediction of the future of communication could be fascinating. They'd need to go back to their roots of putting some real effort into the planning and research of the attraction, which is something they have not been willing to do recently.<BR/><BR/>kcnole: <I>I still have faith in the imagineers, its the beancounters who have caused the problems.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm certain the Accountaneers have had an impact, and it's true that the Imagineers have done a nice job crafting some of the recent attractions, but they can't be completely blame-free for the message problems in so many new attractions.<BR/><BR/>I suppose we're talking about different people here, and maybe that's part of the problem. In the past, it seemed that Imagineers tended to be jacks-of-all-trades and the guy building the robot might also be responsible for stylistic decisions about various design elements.<BR/><BR/>From a tech perspective, Nemo is has some neat tricks, but from a message perspective, it really falls down. Nemo shouldn't be there in the first place, but if we assume the suits required his presence, the attraction could have been equally fun and had a more lasting message than "Where's Nemo? Oh, there he is." And this lackluster attempt was followed up immediately by "Where's Donald?" in Mexico.<BR/><BR/>That's a pretty sad imagination deficit from a group called "Imagineering".Captain Schnemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112333068173312142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-29140571494010190612007-04-16T13:53:00.000-07:002007-04-16T13:53:00.000-07:00All - I've added some content to my little pet pro...All - <BR/><BR/>I've added some content to my little pet project site "FixEpcot.com" that summarizes some of the things that have been wished for in "executive summary format." Take a look and please let me know what you think.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.fixepcot.com" REL="nofollow">FixEPCOT.com</A><BR/><BR/> -BrianBrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08661250244429939011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-23559545136341885022007-04-16T12:11:00.000-07:002007-04-16T12:11:00.000-07:00Although I have no way of confirming this, it's my...<I>Although I have no way of confirming this, it's my understanding that Siemens values the current attraction, thus they turned down the Time Racers thrill ride concept that Disney was trying to sell to them.</I><BR/><BR/>That's what I believe I've heard as well, and I think it's been more or less backed up by what we've actually seen so far--depending, of course, on how you look at it.. The post-show, nearing completion after a long absence, seems to have been thought out reasonably well and with a real desire to make the space engaging, however effective it may actually end up being. And though I understand (with a bit of a laugh) that the new logo evokes more of a "confused vortex" than the forward-thinking old one, it's still more straightforward than the majority of the post-Innoventions clutter of the park. I also think the fact that it brings back the original globe design says something about how much the WDI/Seimens team working on this attraction understands its roots. <BR/><BR/>Again, I understand that this could really end up tipping in either direction, but as much as the refurbished ride could suck there is also, I think, equal reason to believe that the ride's rehab team is looking to bring back some of the resectful simplicity the park lost when it became Epcot. Though virtual toad brings up another great point (and valid fear) about WDI fitting square pegs into round holes of late, it seems that Seimens, at least, is trying to guide the SSE rehab in a more appropriate direction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-75308749173133966442007-04-16T10:00:00.000-07:002007-04-16T10:00:00.000-07:00"...Three Caballeros overlay. ..The whole thing l..."...Three Caballeros overlay. ..The whole thing left me with a bad Slurpee headache."<BR/><BR/>Are you sure it wasn't those margueritas? ;)<BR/><BR/>The positive thing that I see about this Spaceship Earth update is the sponsor. Although I have no way of confirming this, it's my understanding that Siemens values the current attraction, thus they turned down the Time Racers thrill ride concept that Disney was trying to sell to them. That isn't to say that they are not going to try to jazz up the storyline. There is a lot of opportunity for wrecking something that has value. I hope that someone is talented enough at WDI to see the strengths of the show and build on those, rather than adding a lot of superfluous material that waters down the experience. A show doesn't have to be fast-paced to be captivating.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-20731796098153321592007-04-16T07:53:00.000-07:002007-04-16T07:53:00.000-07:00Okay, a few more thoughts on the whole Spaceship E...Okay, a few more thoughts on the whole Spaceship Earth thing and why, even though it sounds good on paper, many of us are still worried.<BR/><BR/>Stay with me, it all comes around. <BR/><BR/>Show buildings, like all physical spaces, give off energy; the have a vibe. When you introduce incongruous elements into a space, it messes with the vibe. <BR/><BR/>To be more specific, take two examples. First, Enchanted Tiki Room Under New Management.<BR/>Iago and Co. are totally out of place in the Tiki Room because the space, setting, set design, lighting, etc. weren't designed to showcase annoying agressive birds from outside Polynesia. <BR/><BR/>The serenity of the physical space is now in total conflict with the new subject matter of the show. The guest may not be conscious of this conflict, but nonetheless it has a tangible negative effect on his or her enjoyment of the attraction. <BR/><BR/>Something just isn't right.<BR/><BR/>And that's the same problem I have now with the Three Caballeros overlay. I saw it twice over the weekend and both times I came out of the ride physically and mentally exhausted. At first, I couldn't figure out why. Was I just angry with the changes? The whole thing left me with a bad Slurpee headache.<BR/><BR/>After giving it some thought, it dawned on me. Frenetic animated birds have no business on the screens of El Rio del Tiempo **because the physical space was never designed to accommodate them.**<BR/><BR/>Think about it-- now you coast serenely past an ancient pyramid in a slow-moving boat, turn the corner, and WHAM! LOUD OBNOXIOUS BIRDS! The setup is in total conflict with the payoff. There used to be an immersive pacing to the attraction, a slow, natural progression of energy from start to finish. Now it's an all-out, unrelenting, fast moving, animated assault on the senses. Great if it's a simulator ride or roller coaster. But IT JUST DOESN'T WORK in a physical setting designed for a slow-moving, relaxing boat cruise. <BR/><BR/>Maybe that's what has a lot of us worried about the Spaceship Earth rehab. The physical space, sets and show scenes were all designed to support the original theme and pacing. Recent Disney is more concerned about shoehorning ideas (round hole, square peg?) than they are about maintaining the subtle but important relationship between physical setting and show content.<BR/><BR/>It used to be I'd go on Disney attractions and wonder "How on earth did they do that?" Now, more and more, I wonder "WHY on earth did they do that?"<BR/><BR/>Will the new Spaceship Earth design honor the original intention of the show space, or are we talking about another forced concept? Will the new finale match the spirit of the ascent, or will we spend the last five minutes of the ride staring at (yet another) video screen while rolling past empty black walls?<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the long post. I just wanted to explain to the "you think change is always bad" crowd why some of us are mindfully critical of changes made just for the sake of change. Sadly, "new" doesn't always mean "new and improved."Virtual Toadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12601737654750795321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-80996252948324984632007-04-16T07:30:00.000-07:002007-04-16T07:30:00.000-07:00"As much as Disney has failed in the past, they ha...<I>"As much as Disney has failed in the past, they have still had some successes, Im holding out to see if this is one of them.</I><BR/><BR/>I still have faith in the imagineers, its the beancounters who have caused the problems. Just take a look at what is going on in Tokyo where money is no object to see that the imagineers still get it when given the freedom to get it. The problem is that they know that here in the states they're not allowed to get it anymore so they only do what the money allows them to do. That's not WDI's fault except that maybe they don't fight hard enough.<BR/><BR/>I'm hoping that Siemen's sees this as a wonderful chance to showcase their productline and are willing to pour the amount of money necessary into making this right. So I'm going to wait and see. I have no problem with the theme of SSE changing a bit. I don't think it has to be so tied into only communication. It was that way only because AT&T was the sponsor at inception. I think the change can work just fine. Let's just wait and see. It could be awful, but I like to see the glass as half full and until I see a reason to proclaim it half empty (as we have at Test Track) then I'm going to view it as half full.Kevin Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13482520379371342662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-72469836035760806262007-04-16T06:50:00.000-07:002007-04-16T06:50:00.000-07:00cs: "Despite acknowledging that things are quite ...cs: <I> "Despite acknowledging that things are quite different from the way things were 25 years ago, and despite the fact that this has been true for centuries, you fail to imagine that this will continue to be true? Do you find no lesson in history?<BR/><BR/>It must be so devastatingly depressing to believe that right now is as good as it's ever going to get." </I><BR/><BR/>All I meant when I said that was that as far as communications technology goes, in the past 15 years it has advanced more rapidly than in the 15 years before that- when I was in 4th grade all our homework had to be done on computers!- my parents were amazed. Technology will probably continue to advance at an exponential place which really means that no matter what Epcot does, it will be obsolete before they finish building it! If you want to talk about devestatingly depressing, what about the idea that the world is going to end in 5 yrs? (Sorry that's what I was listening to on the radio this morning). My point is, that they could build attarctions about all this new technology before and it would seem new and cool for at least a few years before it became everyday stuff. Now, computers are obsolete before you even take them out of the box! I think some of the stuff they announced for the new SSE aftershow is cool, like the remote surgery and stuff, but you have to remember that they already have this technology, thats how they can put it in there in the first place. So it's going to be really difficult to make stuff that seems so futuristic as it did in the 80s. I know Epcot seems run down and kinda lost now, but its still one of my favorite places in the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-58598274363766197532007-04-16T06:00:00.000-07:002007-04-16T06:00:00.000-07:00Give it up. I love Spaceship Earth, but it always...Give it up. I love Spaceship Earth, but it always felt like my Journalism 101 class. Why not broaden the appeal? If Epcot put in a new drinking fountain, you would find a reason to complain. (The Epcot water fountains in 1982 were colder!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-36615828849950878882007-04-15T20:20:00.000-07:002007-04-15T20:20:00.000-07:00About the new Spaceship Earth logo: What do you m...About the new Spaceship Earth logo: What do you mean a negative interpretation? It's most certainly the swirling vortex of death. ;)<BR/><BR/>About Soarin': they should have placed the entrance to it on the upper level since it deals with an aerial perspective of the Land. The film should focus on how the Land is shaped and affected by the environmental forces of the Earth. I can imagine an incredible sequence where the film follows a tiny windblown seed as it braves the elements in it's flight to bring new life to a remote location.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23143199.post-17875549432413422012007-04-15T18:58:00.000-07:002007-04-15T18:58:00.000-07:00The main problem with Soarin' at Epcot is that it ...<I>The main problem with Soarin' at Epcot is that it was created for another purpose (which made complete sense within that context) and then Disney tried to find a place to "stick it". Not exactly in line with the grand vision thing.</I><BR/><BR/>That's what I was just thinking recently. The way Soarin' was introduced into Epcot is what I find most objectionable about it. <BR/><BR/>Other than that, though--and this is where we may disagree--I think it's one of the best and most "EPCOT" things they've brought to lower-case Epcot in recent years. I don't see it relating to aeronautics at all, aside from the fact that you're in a hang glider (and aside from the fact that they have the queue and show space themed like a hangar). It's very much about inspiring wonder and awe at the land that's spread out beneath you--a big presentational experience (largely free of a ridiculous narrative set-up) in the tradition of Walt's True-Life Adventures and, dare I say it, even of the original EPCOT Center attractions.<BR/><BR/>Most importantly, Soarin' stands alone as the one recent product of lower-case Epcot that really, truly is geared to and amazes all ages. It doesn't (aside from the occasional flying golf ball) stoop to the empty thrills of its Future World East counterparts, and it doesn't (aside from Tinkerbell) play solely to young children like its Future World West neighbors. It appeals to every demographic a good EPCOT Center attraction should. How telling of WDI's understanding of Epcot that this one wasn't even made for the park.<BR/><BR/>Now clearly, that point is part of the problem. It wasn't made for The Land, so it isn't at the level of the old pavilions yet. It doesn't yet <I>say</I> very much on its own. The film should ideally take us above all parts of the world, showing us not only the Earth's natural wonders but also people who use it wisely and live harmoniously with it (think the new and stunning "Planet Earth" TV series, with a farmer or two). It should tell us, without words, how precious our planet is and how urgent it is that we preserve it. The images and trivia questions in the queue do a fair job of this already, but the entire attraction should be revised in that mold to make a more cohesive pavilion.<BR/><BR/>As it is, however, the ride does succeed somewhat in driving that message home, which is really more a testament to the strength of the rest of the pavilion (especially "Living with the Land", still hanging on and in fine form) than anything else. And really, though the ride isn't quite where it should be right now, that's what's so great about Soarin': when you look at it within The Land, sure, it might be the oddball, but it really doesn't detract from the message. It enhances it, and in my opinion helps to establish The Land as Future World's strongest pavilion. Guests of all ages line up in droves to witness the latest farming technology on one ride, to fly over the land itself on another, to enjoy the fruits (literally) of what they've seen in the restaurants...heck, even the character placement in The Land (the "Circle of Life" film) isn't as cheap or patronizing as it is in--well, other areas of Epcot. Though I'd personally alter the interior aesthetics and organization (and the Soarin' film, as I said) The Land is truly one of the gems of Epcot today. I think it's the best evidence we have that modern guests will still flock to a Future World pavilion that harmoniously houses eateries, a film, a traditional slow ride, real researchers in action, and an E-ticket that--imagine!--doesn't revolve around speed or nausea but wonder. It's a work in progress, but there's a lot to be learned from The post-Soarin' Land, methinks.<BR/><BR/>Wait, isn't this conversation about Spaceship Earth?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com